Never again on PE - share your mistakes

[Tim Krajcar]

I would just like to note that I keep my bloopers to myself.....but I do commend all you honest folk' for going public

Roger that, I'll keep an eye out for you online, and post yours for you. No worries.

[Daddy O]

"And now I make sure and check ALL the trim readouts before throttling up for departure... not just elevator.[/quote]"

If you only calibrate one axis in Xplane then the others will be wonky. I used to do a full calibration in place of a runup at the hold short line, but these days I do it before I release the parking brakes because sometimes I run into problems getting the B200 to stop (especially if I haven't fully loaded the plane.)

[arb65912]

Here is another one...

I was using TEC route M type for BE20 KSAN-KSBA. I copied vaypoints to Skyvector Enroute L-4.
All good ... except There are two different ways to fly from AVX to VTU, via V27 or via V208.
TEC route calls for 208 which is not straight from AVX to VTU which of course I was flying ...
I was politely explained above and cleared direct VTU.

Always check the route carefully along airways so you do not skip the waypoint.

I am pretty sure I was one of very few that made that mistake or ... wasn't I ?

Cheers, AJ

[Steven Winslow]

So, apparently there's a reason for "minimums" on approach plates. I knew better, but it was getting close to PE shutdown time and I was on final approach. I chose to do the RNAV approach to RWY 11 at SBP. I figured I'd tune in the localizer just in case. As I locked onto the localizer and caught the glide slope at around 2000 ft, I was only a little uneasy that I couldn't see a thing. I knew I would break out and see the runway at around 400 feet, according to the weather from ATC. Even though minimum is 805 for RNAV and 398 for ILS, I felt secure knowing I was on glide slope on the localizer. But 300 feet came and went, then 200, then 100, then 50 and still no runway. I seriously considered pulling up at that point, but I kept on descending. I got down to 13 feet and the plane had still not touched the runway and I still couldn't see a thing. At that point, I switched off AP, pulled up the gear and headed out of there. But it was too little, too late. As I retracted flaps and tried to gain some speed and altitude, I saw the trees coming towards me and I knew I was doomed. As I sat there and watched the smoke fill the cockpit, ATC made the closing announcement and I was left alone in my embarrassment. Next time, no flying below minimums. If I wouldn't chance it in the real world, why would I try it in the sim? Lesson learned....the hard way.

[arb65912]

Steve, great lesson. Thank you for sharing.
I had similar situation last night, ceiling was 400 and I was landing ILS with a bit of tail wind, I was considering VOR approach which would favor the wind but since that low ceiling I chose and was cleared for ILS approach.

Questions:

1.If you let AP go to the very end ( I am not saying that it would be the right decision at all) on GS, do you think you would be able to land?

2. What would should do in the case you described? Call missed approach and divert to a different airport or try to land again?

[Keith Smith]

AJ,

If the field was well below minimums and I was not looking for a training opportunity, I would divert before getting there, either to the filed alternate or any other nearby field with suitable weather. If the forecast weather during the period 1hr before through 1hr hour after your arrival time show visibility less than 3nm OR ceiling < 2000ft, an alternate field is required in the flight plan. Unless otherwise published in the 'alternate minimums' document (available on airnav.com), the forecast weather at the field alternate needs to be 800-2 if it's a non-precision approach or 600-2 for a precision approach.

If the field was at or slightly below minimums, OR if I was happy to go there for training purposes, then I would shoot the approach at the first field to see how it goes. Note, the 'slightly below minimums' comment is not meant to imply that I intend to go below minimums, it's simply because weather can change fairly rapidly, and can be distributed unevenly around an airport. It can be worth a shot sometimes.

Shooting an approach to minimums (regardless of the ceilings and visibility) does NOT have to be a dangerous or tricky endeavor. If you don't have the field by the time you reach decision height (precision) or the missed approach point (non-precision), then you execute the missed.

Going below minimums without being able to see the runway environment is dangerous for the obvious reasons demonstrated by Steve above (great post, btw, it's clear that you learned a great deal from that one!), but also because the missed approach procedure is predicated upon being executed no later than a certain point on the approach, and starting at the MDA/DH. In other words, if you go missed half way down the runway starting at 30ft off the ground and you climb at the minimum gradient, you've lost the terrain clearance protection that is afforded by the missed approach procedure. It's subtle, but it's an extra danger that not everyone is aware of.

Steve, thanks again for the post. I do have one question, though. You mentioned that you were shooting the RNAV approach but that you felt comfortable because you had a glideslope. Are you referring to the glideslope assoicated with the ILS approach? If so, use caution when mixing navaids from different approaches. There is a guy who is a 20,000hr+ pilot (John Deakin) who won't even swap from the ILS to the LOC approach (even though all the info is on the same physical plate) in mid stream. If he loses a glideslope signal, he goes missed and then briefs the LOC version (non-precision) before giving it another shot.

AJ, to your other question, glideslope signals are not guaranteed to be reliable once below the published minimums for the approach(es) served by that glideslope. Following it all the way to the runway (in real life) would not necessarily be a safe option, unless there was a CAT III approach published for that facility.

[arb65912]

Keith, Thank you very much for detailed explanation with all options. I asked what would happen if you let AP fly to the end out of curiosity, I hope , I would not decide to do that and now after Steve's post and your explanation, I know I will not.

I asked:"2. What would should do in the case you described? Call missed approach and divert to a different airport or try to land again?"
After reading it again I admit that the bold part of question was simply stupid. I know about MD/MDA and the question like that should not even arise...

Anyway, what I am going to do in a case we discussed here.
1. Check the minimums at the destination airport and compare with available approach type.
2. If the weather is slightly below or below minimums (visibility less than 3nm OR ceiling < 2000ft), I will find alternate with 800-2 if it's a non-precision approach or 600-2 for a precision approach.
3. If I do not see the runway by the time I am at MDA/DH, I execute missed approach.
4. I will not swap between approaches when already on a particular one.

CAT III, I thought that there is no facility yet that has CAT II, is it?

Thank you again, both, Steve and Keith for a great learning material. Cheers, AJ.

[DrZGard]

Great discussion on the weather minimums and how to treat a missed approach and alternate airport. I had always thought of the alternate as a close by airport reporting better weather (and usually a longer, better lit ILS like a major airport). My instrument checkride changed my thinking on this though. Mary Schu, a very accomplished career pilot and excellent instructor, explained to me that my thinking on that alternate should be a safe haven if all goes awry. If in radio contact you can do most anything you ask for upon going missed so that selected alternate might not be where you actually go. You can check that weather at the close by major airport and it might be a good place to get the plane on the ground. But if you've just had a bad day of flying in IMC and lost radio contact ATC needs to know what your plan is. You shoot that approach and find the weather worse than expected, do you want to continue poking around in the same weather close by hoping you get lucky? NO! You want to pull that gear up, fly the published missed and go somewhere you are pretty sure you'll get in safe. She recommended (within reasonable fuel expectations) that you look for an airport where you know the weather tends to be better almost all of the time. If initial landing was to take place along the coast you might pick an alternate on the other side of the coastal mountain range where the weather should be much different. Remember that alternate is not only what you are planning to do, its your safe haven if you've also lost radio contact so ATC can anticipate and provide a clear path.

[Steven Winslow]

Keith, thanks for the reply to my story. I knew from a long way out that I should have diverted. ATC told me ceiling was 400 with mist. I considered my options when he gave me conditions and asked me what my approach preference was. I looked at both the ILS and the RNAV approaches and it looked like the RNAV approach would get me there quicker, as the ILS approach has a hold. Knowing what I know now, I will always divert to a "safe haven" as you call it. That's what I always thought the alternate was. Kind of an escape route, of sorts.

As I turned to final, I had a gut feeling it was not a good idea to blend approaches. Funny thing is it felt like cheating when I tuned in the localizer. But I was nervous about not seeing runway lights and I figured the localizer would, at the very least, get me close enough to see the lights. I figured with 400 foot ceiling, I still had room to break out of the overcast. When I went below minimums, my heart started pounding and everything in my head said go missed, but the pressure of "get there before PE closes-itis" set in and I was hell bent to land. I don't normally do coupled landings, although I have done a few in some of our airliners at ANW, I normally disengage with about a mile left on approach. Different aircraft seem to handle coupled landings differently. Some will take you right down to the runway and others leave you about 10 to 20 feet in the air, as was the case last night. With zero visibility coupled with the night landing, I had no choice but to trust the glide slope, which in the end was a fatal mistake. That's what makes the sim such a great learning tool. I can make stupid mistakes and live to discuss it!

[Keith Smith]

Steve,

You're welcome. Again, it was awesome that you posted it. Its sounds like you chose the RNAV over the ILS because of a perception that it would be quicker to fly the RNAV (since the ILS had a hold). Bear in mind, there are two ways to fly the approach:
1) full approach as published from a feeder or the IAF (the I-6 rating in the Pilot training program)
2) vectors to final (the I-1 rating in the Pilot training program).

In fact, compare the I-1 and the I-6 and you'll see you're flying the same approach at the same airport, once with each of the methods above. Recall from the I-1 that you didn't fly the hold even those one was published. So, applying that to your case above, you 'punished' the ILS approach unnecessarily. You could've flown it with vectors to final (ATC's default course of action) lickity split

Otherwise, I agree with everything else you said. "get there itis" is a very real thing. I'll post my story about shooting the ILS 10R into MRY recently in the LJ25 with so little fuel that I knew I wouldn't be able to go missed...and the weather was COMICALLY below minimums. I saved the replay on that one...it's exciting viewing The fuel disaster was a result of using 'on paper' fuel burns instead of knowing what the plane actually burns in X-Plane. Unfortunately, the numbers were WAY WAY off, resulting in a fuel situation of epic proportions.

Keith