Minimums?

In article
,
says...


On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian wrote:
While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).

From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.


Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.

In article ,
says...


I think you my have been just a little misleading. We surely agree
the missed approach may not be flown until at the MAP, but of course
the pilot is under no obligation to descend to the minimum allowable
altitude. The slightly misleading point is a miss may not include an
initial turn. Should the pilot choose to abort the landing early (s)he
can climb. I am not sure, but would expect the pilot owns the airspace
up to the altitiude of his/her final approach fix until the missed
approach point is reached (unless cleared higher, of course), and then
owns the altitudes published on the approach plate for the miss.

Finally, and it might be interest to the intial poster, good pilots
who are flying an instrument approach
are thinking about flying the miss -- initial heading, gear up, adjust
flaps, climb to altitude, all of that-- rather than landing the
airplane. Finding the runway, which happens nearly all of the time, is
treated as a happy accident. The alternative, thinking about the
landing and not the miss, could leave someone low and slow in clouds
trying to figure out what to do next. That can lead to unhappy
accidents.


That's an excellent point - oft taught, oft forgot! It just goes against our
nature. All pilots I know - good or otherwise - are expecting to land. The
controllers are expecting it too. But at least - even if you're expecting to
land, at least prepare for the missed - know it, brief it, set up frequencies
for it - otherwise going missed can coincide with going missing (sometimes
for years!!)

In article
,
says...


We make a weather induced miss about every 400 hours flying in the
north east and south east, most often on non precision approaches at
uncontrolled airports.

That's a very intriguing number.
At first glance, it looks like a high percentage. But normalized to the
type of equipment, mission and approach you are typically flying it may
not be. From accident reports, we all know that missed approaches are in
the high-alert category for risk, however this again probably deserves to
be normalized against they type of operation - go-arounds being possibly
more common and better integrated in corporate 91 and 135 flights than in
part 121 ops.

The experience level you describe indicates you may have quite a few
missed approaches in your log. For many of us, it's a fairly rare
occurrence. Out of curiosity, what do you do, typically, in these cases?
Do you go around to try again? Once? Twice? Try a different approach with
lower minima? Go elsewhere? How do you handle the missed?

In article
,
says...


A weather induced miss every 400 hours is a very low fraction. It
usually means the weather forecast for an uncontrolled airport was
better than actual. On a non precision approach, unless there were
strong hints -- peeks of the of ground during the day or lights at
night near the MAP, or (can I say this?) an approach not flown well,
not to his personal minimums, husband goes elsewhere. He may have
flown a second approach once in the past 4 years (he logs about 200
hours of complex sel (a Mooney) a year.

He had to search his memory to remember that level of detail --
remember, the airplane doesn't leave on about 10% of his planned
trips, so he avoids weather induced misses because if it looks like
it'll be below minimums he doesn't take off, or while on the way if
the controlled airport is reporting conditions worse than minimums he
won't take a peek even if as a part 91 operation he could.

I don't think he's doing anything a prudent pilot wouldn't do. Well,
IMC at night might be pushing that, I guess. He does say -- and this
might be something many do not agree with -- workload with a single
pilot just is not a big deal, especially if IFR. He says that, but if
I'm in the right seat the only thing he wants to hear me say when he's
flying an approach in IMC is "You are visual".



Nice post - sounds like fun.

IMC at night? Some feel that single-pilot IFR in IMC at night is an
inordinate risk. Others feel it's fine on the condition you know wher VFR
conditions exist, keep them in range, and plan how to get there with
everything on the blink except your whiskey compass.

Workload? IFR is much less work than VFR, as long as you are organized and
have a good autopilot. High workloads can happen when things go wrong.