What would you do?

[Airdale]

Here's a scenario. I'm putting this up for discussion because I am always learning everyday from the Captains I fly with. You know, as bad as Colgan can treat their pilots some times, if management really spend a day following around a flight crew, they would feel really bad because we've got some really awesome Captains and great pilots.

That being said, here's a scenario in which I always thought was a gray area in my head, but thanks to asking questions and having a good discussion with my Captain this month, I have a much clearer picture.


You are 8 miles out, 3,000' and on a vector to intercept the localizer on the BOS ILS 4R approach. You have been cleared for the approach. Tower reports TDZE RVR1800 as you are cleared for the approach. You intercept the localizer and begin configuring. Now you are 6 miles out, on localizer and on glideslope. Just prior to crossing the outer marker, or FAF as published on the plate, tower reports TDZE RVR1200. You need RVR1800 for the approach. Your about 1900-2000' on the approach, I believe the GS altitude at the marker is something like 1784.

Do you continue or terminate the approach?

- You're established on the Loc andGlideslope
- You're 1 mile from the the published FAF/GS intercept altitude



Discuss!

[mikecweb]

Not sure about 121 but 135 you can't cross the fix unless you got the minimums.

[FlyChicaga]

If you are 1 mile from the glideslope intercept altitude (which likely is not 1784'), then you must discontinue the approach. However, it sounds like you intercepted the glideslope at the glideslope intercept altitude, since you said you are between 1900' and 2000' and are descending. If you are below the glideslope intercept altitude (which is NOT necessarily the outer marker) then you can continue.

That is the book answer.

[mnixon]

Don't reply to tower until your inside the marker.

[WalterSobchak]

Originally Posted by mnixon

Don't reply to tower until your inside the marker.

LOL Freight days so true. I would discontinue the approach and be legal because youre only making extra money. Unless you are pas the FAF you don't continue that approach(ops specs pending). Its all about the extra tenth! You don't get paid extra to be a cowboy in 121.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by mnixon

Don't reply to tower until your inside the marker.

Not exactly. You respond with "Say again for Colgan XXXX" until you're below the FAF incept altitude. You never heard them until you're legal for the approach eh?

At my company we'd have (hopefully) briefed the approach as a Cat II to begin with (if the runway has Cat II capability) so it wouldn't be an issue and we could continue as a monitored approach in either situation.

If we hadn't briefed it like that, or the runway was only a Cat. I runway then I'd be discontinuing the approach unless I had a real compelling reason to get the plane on the ground NOW.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

Not exactly. You respond with "Say again for Colgan XXXX" until you're below the FAF incept altitude. You never heard them until you're legal for the approach eh?


If we hadn't briefed it like that, or the runway was only a Cat. I runway then I'd be discontinuing the approach unless I had a real compelling reason to get the plane on the ground NOW.

all good unless something goes wrong and they play the recording

the correct response

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

all good unless something goes wrong and they play the recording

the correct response

What's the recording gonna prove? That you couldn't hear their transmission?

(You're right Dale, and said practice would be 100% unsafe and unethical, but what could the feds prove? That you didn't hear what they said?)

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by jtrain609

What's the recording gonna prove? That you couldn't hear their transmission?

If the tower transmissions were on the recorder clearly, and then the same when you "actually " heard it, then that could give the investigators cause to get you answering more questions than you would would want . . . that's all my young brother

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by bumblebee

If the tower transmissions were on the recorder clearly, and then the same when you "actually " heard it, then that could give the investigators cause to get you answering more questions than you would would want . . . that's all my young brother

Hey I ain't gonna disagree with you too much, but I know there have been situations where the controller was probably clear as a bell, but with all these bells and whistles going off in the airplane sometimes I legitly don't hear what the controllers are saying and have to ask them to repeat themselves.

I guess you'd need to hear something in the background to play that game eh?

[USMC-SGT]

I dont believe the beech can do a cat II and wouldnt have been briefed

as I read it providing you are outside the FAF and have not intercepted the glideslope at the published altitude than you need to go missed....is the legal answer

but what jtrain said

[Snuggle]

"BLOCKED"

[ppragman]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Not sure about 121 but 135 you can't cross the fix unless you got the minimums.

True dat, however....

"Somewherville Tower, XXX 1435, didn't catch your last transmission, would you like a ride report?"

[coa787]

Originally Posted by mikecweb

Not sure about 121 but 135 you can't cross the fix unless you got the minimums.

Does '121' refer to regional airlines and '135' refer to major airlines?

[WalterSobchak]

Originally Posted by coa787

Does '121' refer to regional airlines and '135' refer to major airlines?

No. 2 different rules of operation.

[coa787]

Originally Posted by WalterSobchak

No. 2 different rules of operation.

So, do those differ between regional and major airlines?

[mrivc211]

I know this ain't the most popular answer buuuuut. If its below mins, I ain't gonna try it.

two reasons, #1 its illegal.

#2 why should I risk my life for $90,000/yr? I mean yeah i do it everyday, but to take an extra risk that I dont have too? No thanks. Not gonna do it. If its not legal, tough. We ain't gettin in. Not to mention grandmas life in the back.

Its kinda like that security guard who works at the bank. makes $9/hr. If they hold the place up, you think he's gonna be a hero for $9/hr?

LOL.

[jtrain609]

Originally Posted by coa787

So, do those differ between regional and major airlines?

Part 121 are the rules ALL airlines operate under, and part 135 are the rules that charter/ small freight companies operate under.

[EDUC8-or]

Originally Posted by mrivc211

I know this ain't the most popular answer buuuuut. If its below mins, I ain't gonna try it.

two reasons, #1 its illegal.

#2 why should I risk my life for $90,000/yr? I mean yeah i do it everyday, but to take an extra risk that I dont have too? No thanks. Not gonna do it. If its not legal, tough. We ain't gettin in. Not to mention grandmas life in the back.

Its kinda like that security guard who works at the bank. makes $9/hr. If they hold the place up, you think he's gonna be a hero for $9/hr?

LOL.

I don't know why you think that answer wouldn't be popular. If there's one thing this job has taught me, it's to be conservative. There's nothing I dislike more than flying with a "Cowboy" or someone who tries to bend the rules. There's a reason why there are published mins, what's the popular saying? Something like the FAR's are written in blood?

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by mrivc211

I know this ain't the most popular answer buuuuut. If its below mins, I ain't gonna try it.

two reasons, #1 its illegal.

#2 why should I risk my life for $90,000/yr? I mean yeah i do it everyday, but to take an extra risk that I dont have too? No thanks. Not gonna do it. If its not legal, tough. We ain't gettin in. Not to mention grandmas life in the back.

Its kinda like that security guard who works at the bank. makes $9/hr. If they hold the place up, you think he's gonna be a hero for $9/hr?

LOL.

Originally Posted by EDUC8-or

I don't know why you think that answer wouldn't be popular. If there's one thing this job has taught me, it's to be conservative. There's nothing I dislike more than flying with a "Cowboy" or someone who tries to bend the rules. There's a reason why there are published mins, what's the popular saying? Something like the FAR's are written in blood?

[JayAre]

Cancel the approach and hold if able or divert.

[KLB]

Break off of the approach and then hold or go somewhere else. That one is pretty black and white in the regs.

[jynxyjoe]

Originally Posted by Snuggle

"BLOCKED"

[Alchemy]

I think in this scenario you have to go missed. Call me a wuss, but personally I would not want any part of those conditions (1200 rvr) unless I was ready to shoot a CAT II approach.

RANT

I got into this situation a few weeks ago actually, but maybe not quite as bad. Long story short a fog bank hit the airport when were about 30 miles out (reducing TDZ RVR to 1400), we whizzed through the CAT II monitored approach briefing on downwind and shot the approach.

Our monitored approach procedure has the FO flying coupled to the autopilot, so they alone are responsible for calling a missed approach if they don't hear the captain say "landing, I have the aircraft" before decision height. 100 ft above DH, the captain "goes heads up", removing himself from the instrument scan while searching for visual cues through the windshield. To me this is the ultimate act of faith in your fellow pilot. At those speeds and that close to the ground, I can't be looking outside very effectively if I have to worry about scanning the instruments too. I must trust that my FO is going to call the go around if we suddenly lose the signal, the autopilot goes into a funky mode, or he doesn't hear me say the magic words by DH.

It was a thin fog layer, so we could see the tip of the tower for most of the approach but never the ground, runway, or ALS. Complicating matters was the fact that runway was almost perfectly aligned with the sunrise (100 magnetic heading), rendering the approach lights virtually useless (washed out by the sun).

My FO, who came from a freight (C208) background, DIDN'T CALL MISSED after we got the "minimums, minimums" callout from the airplane and the RA dropped below 100.

Once we reached 100 on the RA, I sat there for a brief moment of contemplation before I spoke up and called the go around on my own (thank goodness for the aural warning unit). Of course by the time I had processed the thought of "hey he didn't call it, but we need to go missed" we had broken below the fog and could see the runway. At that point it was too late, I had already mentally comitted to the missed approach. Plus we were definitely out of position to land properly in the touchdown zone.

In the end we shot a quick missed. By the time we came back around the fog had started to dissapate and we landed successfully. I told my FO thanks for all the help, but don't be shy about calling the go around when we hit the minimums.

Moral of the story, just play it by the book, that way everyone is on the same page. If you're going to cheat the minimums, at least let the other guy know beforehand. I would like to know about it ahead of time so we can resolve the situation, rather than finding out at Decision height on a CAT II ILS. Maybe it's a little easier to cheat in a SAAB or 1900 when your going 100 knots or so but pushing 140 in an RJ the time from 100 ft to ground impact isn't long enough to d#ck around with IMHO.....

Later, over drinks, this FO informed me that there was "no way" he would've gone missed in those conditions in his caravan (which I can only assume wasn't even CAT II certified). I guess we can draw our own conclusions from that.

I don't post this to dig at freight guys, but I just hope we can recognize hazardous attitudes like this before they bite us in the ass. In the pax carrying world you have to remember that it's not only your butt on the line, but a whole bunch of other people are sitting behind you too. While this probably not the smartest thing to put out there on a public forum, I think it's worthwhile if anyone can learn something from this story.

/RANT

I've also had a situation coming in to a certain airport with triple paralells where approach would not grant my request for the runway with the best visibility, offering me either a runway with marginal vis or a hold at 3000 ft with an indefinite EFC.

So of course I continued for the runway with marginal vis (think it was 1900 rvr). I was not CAT II qualified at the time, and sure enough, on 7 or 8 mile final (just outside publisehd G/S intercept), RVR drops to 1600....go around....divert, sit on ground for 3 hours, good times.

[mikecweb]

Confused a little about your story. According to your CAT II approach breif the FO eyes were supposed to be inside the whole time and he was only supposed to call a missed if you lost signal, autopilot acted weird, or you didn't say "the magic words" by DH. So when minimums is announced by the little computer you don't have to say something like "field not in sight"?
I'm really not sure what the pilots freight background has to do with anything either. If anything he's probably been in and around minimums a bunch so his comfort level down there is better then your 300 hour wonder kids that occupy that seat sometimes. A pilot that goes below minimums is an unsafe pilot no matter if he came from freight, flight instructing, or dual received.
As far as the speed he probably flew the approach faster in the C208.
What you have behind you has no bearing on your decision making at DH or at any point on an approach. Infact the only time what you have in the back should enter your mind is if the ride isn't smooth at altitude. If the fact that you have 50-100 people(depending on which RJ) or 1700 lbs of dog #### enters your mind when you have to be making a continue or missed decision then I believe your focus is being clouded.

*Also this isn't a freight vs. regional thing so the peanut gallery can have a seat again.