transitioning from instruments to visual landing on final

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:%tvlc.22953$I%1.1648156@attbi_s51...
"Stan Gosnell" me@work wrote...

I'm
lucky enough to fly a dual-pilot aircraft, and my usual policy
is that the PF does the landing if we break out on the ILS at or
above 400'AGL, but the PNF, who is looking outside, does the
landing if we break out lower. It's just too difficult to make
the transition at lower altitudes, which can be as low as 100'.

Dunno about that one...

Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last
second may be even a riskier proposition. The PF has been actively flying
and has the current feel of the controls. He has unconsciously set the
bias
in the trim that suits his techniques, which may be different from the
PNF's. The PF also has established his instrument scan, which he can
maintain until the flare or go-around; he will have been peeking out the
window regardless of his discipline, and will have no worse a situational
awareness than the PNF at first ground contact.

Of course, if your OpSpecs dictate that technique and it is practiced
often,
it may work out for you. I wouldn't recommend it to a novice, though.

John Weiss
ATP, 747-400 F/O

I agree about recommending it to a novice John, but in a well trained
cockpit, the transfer is not difficult. We did it both ways in the B-52 and
B-1B and it worked out if you knew who you were flying with and had
confidence in him (her). In those aircraft, there was nothing lower than a
DH of 200' authorized. I imagine you go much lower than that in the 74.

JB

"Jim Baker" wrote...

Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last
second may be even a riskier proposition.

I agree about recommending it to a novice John, but in a well trained
cockpit, the transfer is not difficult. We did it both ways in the B-52
and
B-1B and it worked out if you knew who you were flying with and had
confidence in him (her). In those aircraft, there was nothing lower than
a
DH of 200' authorized. I imagine you go much lower than that in the 74.

The "well trained cockpit" is the key here. If you fly as a dedicated crew
all the time, you can work out those things. For pilots who switch partners
virtually every leg, it's a much bigger problem.

I remember back in my Navy instructor days that we'd have to do all the
landings in the TA-4 during students' back-seat instrument flights. After a
while, I'd come to expect almost ANYTHING in the way of trim when I took it
at minimums (usually severe VMC in the front, though). The fact that I was
the Instrument Stan guy who "touched" virtually every student with problems
made it even more interesting... I got used to regular crews (B/Ns) in the
A-6, but landing from the right seat was not an approved procedure (though
occasionally practiced on big runways as a 'combat contingency').

Cat I minima still include 200' DH in the 744. Any Cat II or III landing is
Autoland. After a 12- or 14-hour overnight flight from LAX to Seoul,
though, I'm usually tempted to let Otto land if I don't see the runway at
400'. Our FHB gives us that latitude (brief the options on final), and it's
much preferable to a last-second change of control -- which is used almost
exclusively as a Captain's last-resort option when an FO is about to
ham-hand it.

"John R Weiss" wrote in
news:%tvlc.22953$I%1.1648156@attbi_s51:


Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the
PNF at the last second may be even a riskier proposition.
The PF has been actively flying and has the current feel of
the controls. He has unconsciously set the bias in the
trim that suits his techniques, which may be different from
the PNF's. The PF also has established his instrument
scan, which he can maintain until the flare or go-around;
he will have been peeking out the window regardless of his
discipline, and will have no worse a situational awareness
than the PNF at first ground contact.

Of course, if your OpSpecs dictate that technique and it is
practiced often, it may work out for you. I wouldn't
recommend it to a novice, though.

The ops specs leave it up to the captain. I usually fly with
one of 2 FOs, but sometimes with a new guy. My preference is to
have the FO fly the approach, and I will take the controls at
breakout if necessary, after monitoring the approach. I've had
a bad experience or two with the PF looking up, trying to get a
visual reference, and not being properly oriented right away.
We can cut the published visibility in half, down to 1/4 mile,
and Part 91 says you can continue to 100' above the TDZE if you
have the approach lights in sight. I've done that several
times, and always got the runway lights at about 110'. IMO,
that's too low to try to switch to visual, so it's safer to
transfer the controls, especially if it has been briefed and
practiced. A proper approach briefing, including transfer of
controls, is critical.

That's my preference, but your cockpit, your decision.

--
Regards,

Stan

Roy Smith wrote in
:

Night is good practice, if only because there are so many
ground lights to confuse you. For example, on the ILS-16
at HPN, if you're a little left of the localizer and
correcting back to the right when you look up at maybe a
mile or two out, you'll see yourself perfectly lined up
with a line of white lights. The only problem is, it's not
the approach lights, it's I-684. The illusion that it's a
runway is really hard to fight if you've never seen it
before.

You really need to stay on instruments until you're
absolutely sure you've identified the runway visually.

Years ago - about 30, to be more precise - I used to fly
practice approaches to Paducah, KY at night. If you were just a
little off, you not only saw a row of lights, you had saw
sequenced strobe lights leading to them. The strobes were on a
very tall tower, and I'm mildly surprised that no one ever hit
it in the dark, thinking they were lined up for the runway. So
yes, stay on the instruments until short final.

--
Regards,

Stan

That's my preference, but your cockpit, your decision.


It's been the air carrier "standard" since the mid-1980s to do monitored
approaches below a certain combination of reported ceiling and
visibility, and to encourage use of automatics whenever possible.

But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set
of issues to deal with.

Nonetheless, a first rate autopilot with good ILS coupling and vertical
speed for IAPs other than ILS can end up making it work good, provided
the pilot is really proficient at the use of the auto-pilot, knows what
to monitor, and knows when to disconnect once the visual cues are
sufficient.

One size doesn't fit all.

Then again, only the most current and proficient pilot should be flying
an approach to RVR 2400, or so, where often no "break out" ever occurs.

David Megginson wrote
I wouldn't call this wisdom -- I got my rating only nine months ago -- but
for me, the important thing is not to muddle around. When you're IFR, you
want to be either on instruments (full scan) or visual (looking outside and
cross-checking instruments), but never halfway in-between.

I could not disagree more strongly. The essence of flying a good
visual segment in low visibility is exactly the opposite of this - the
blending of visual and instrument references for aircraft control. If
you fly in low vis, especially at night, you will encounter situations
where neither will be sufficient.

If I can see the runway clearly, I throw the virtual switch in my head to
"visual" and finish the landing; if not, I plan to stay on "instruments"
until the DH or MAP and then go missed (so far, I have not had to do a
missed approach -- my rule is never to start out unless my destination is
forecasting at least standard alternate minima).

I think you will discover that your method will not work on those days
when the conditions are iffy - ceiling within 100 ft of mins, and
flight visibility at MDA/DH of a mile or less (two miles or less for
night circling approaches).

Staring out the windshield saying "I can sort-of see the runway, but I still
need to sort-of follow the ILS and sort-of use the gyros to keep the plane
level" is probably not a good flying mode

If you ever hope to land out of an ILS at 3000 RVR or less, it's the
only viable flying mode. People have driven the gear through the
wings of the airplane more than once because they transitioned to
visual references with visibility that was legally sufficient to
descend below DH but not sufficient to maintain precise control of the
airplane.

If you are at the 200 ft DH on an ILS and you can just barely make out
the line of approach lights through the fog or rain - what is your
plan? If you think you're going to be able to control the plane with
just that line, you need to think again. If you're going to miss
that's certainly your choice - but it's not necessary. You can go
down to 100 ft without seeing the runway. Even at 100 ft, if you spot
the VASI, the REIL's, or the red terminating bar (or anything else
listed in 91.175), you can land. It is literally quite possible and
legal (at least in the US - Canadian rules may differ) to not see the
lights until 220 ft, not see the REIL's until 150, not see the runway
itself until crossing the threshold at 60 ft or so, land, roll out,
and still not see the far end of the runway. BTDT.

Since alternate minimums are always at least 2 miles, I don't suppose
you're ever going to encounter these conditions - until the day the
forecast goes bust.

Michael

wrote
But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set
of issues to deal with.

Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
procedures. They're so geared towards crew operations and equipment
that we don't have that they just don't translate well into a
single-pilot cockpit with typical GA equipment.

I learned multiengine flying from an airline captain, and he taught me
to fly as much like the airlines as possible. I suppose that wasn't a
bad thing, but I also wound up carrying a copilot around for many of
my early IFR flights, until I developed the proficiency AND altered my
procedures to where I could handle the workload single-pilot.

Then again, only the most current and proficient pilot should be flying
an approach to RVR 2400, or so, where often no "break out" ever occurs.

I've done it a few times (my lowest to 2000 RVR). Frankly, it's a
cakewalk compared to a circling-only NDB approach at night to a poorly
lit runway in 2 miles vis. Then again, it may have been the
airline-quality training I got that made it a cakewalk...

Michael

"Michael" wrote...

Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
procedures. They're so geared towards crew operations and equipment
that we don't have that they just don't translate well into a
single-pilot cockpit with typical GA equipment.

There may be a lot of differences between single-pilot and 2-pilot
operations, but a lot of "airline" concepts are very applicable/adaptable to
current "typical" GA equipment... I've flown IFR in GA, single- and
multi-pilot military, and [currently] airline aircraft; the basics remain
the same regardless of individual procedures.

These days, GPS is more typical than strange in GA, especially among
IFR-equipped airplanes, and most of them have more capability than airliner
installations! Once you get away from the very low end (IFR-equipped 172s
and 182s), you're likely to see a 2-axis autopilot as well. With these 2
pieces of equipment, you have the basics for adapting "airline procedures,"
with the GPS providing much of the navigation capability of an airliner's
FMS.

If you fly a high-end, 2-pilot GA airplane (cabin-class twin, turboprop, or
jet), you may well be trained using "airline procedures" by Flight Safety or
other professional training company. If you have a high-end
single-engine/single-pilot airplane, you may go for training, but the
procedures have been adapted for single-pilot use in lieu of the "crew
concept." Still, many of the concepts for reducing workload and increasing
situational awareness for the Pilot Flying in a 2-pilot cockpit are still
applicable to the lone pilot; he just has to shoulder the additional
workload of checklists, programming, and communication himself.

Further, those who have an IFR-certified GPS NEED to be "geared towards"
their equipment if they rely on it for IFR operations! These are not simple
boxes like a tune-'n'-fly ILS receiver! If you don't know the equipment, it
will "fail" you at the most inopportune moment!

(Michael) wrote:
Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
procedures.

I don't know about that. I had the pleasure a while ago of checking out
a 737 pilot in our club's Archers. Not surprisingly, I learned a lot
more from him than he did from me.

The most illuminating thing was his attitude towards safety. Before our
first takeoff, he gave me a CRM briefing, including procedures for
positive exchange of controls. He told me that even though he had many
more hours and ratings than I did, I was more current in Archers and
more familiar with the local area, and thus if we had an emergency, he
would expect me to take charge.

Before each and every takeoff, he gave me a full briefing about what we
were about to do. This didn't just include procedures and airspeeds,
but a summary of wind conditions, nearby terrain, and a plan for
emergencies immediately after takeoff (taking wind and terrain into
account). Then he would ask me, "Do you have anything to add?"

Most of the guys I fly with want to just get in and go. I think we've
got a lot to learn from airline pilots. Maybe the specific procedures
don't translate well to spam cans, but the attitude should.

Michael wrote:

I wouldn't call this wisdom -- I got my rating only nine months ago -- but
for me, the important thing is not to muddle around. When you're IFR, you
want to be either on instruments (full scan) or visual (looking outside and
cross-checking instruments), but never halfway in-between.

I could not disagree more strongly. The essence of flying a good
visual segment in low visibility is exactly the opposite of this - the
blending of visual and instrument references for aircraft control. If
you fly in low vis, especially at night, you will encounter situations
where neither will be sufficient.

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that it's especially important to
crosscheck your instruments when flying a visual approach -- even on a night
landing in clear VMC, I will tune in the ILS (when there is one) and glance
down every few seconds to make sure that I'm at or above the glidescope,
because the black hole effect is so dangerous. As I mentioned in my
original posting, cross-checking instruments is always a good idea.

Still, if you're not a freight dog struggling to survive at the bottom of
the aviation food chain, a medevac pilot with a dying patient, or a pilot in
an emergency with flames shooting out from under the cowling, why push down
below minima when you cannot see the runway clearly even if it is
technically legal (say, because you made out a few of the approach lights)?
Presumably, you have an alternate that you can fly to with much safer
landing conditions.

We seem to lose a lot of good, experienced IFR pilots to approaches in IMC,
both in Canada and the U.S., and I suspect that one of the reasons is
pushing too far when there's not a clear visual transition available. A few
weeks ago, I was out over Lake Ontario flying the LOC/DME B circling
approach into Toronto Island in very easy daylight IMC (1000 ft and 2 SM),
but I still couldn't help remembering the poor Baron pilot who died on the
same approach last year, simply disappearing into the lake while trying the
approach, even after the Dash-8 ahead of him had gone missed and returned to
Ottawa.

Since alternate minimums are always at least 2 miles, I don't suppose
you're ever going to encounter these conditions - until the day the
forecast goes bust.

Standard alternate minima in Canada are 400 ft and 1 SM for an airport with
two usable ILS approaches -- in fact, those were the conditions during my
IFR flight test last August.


All the best,


David