Programming minimums

[sarangan]

We were flying ILS approaches long before electronic audio alerts became a thing. I don't think pilots were routinely plowing into the ground in the old days because they didn't have the GPS lady calling out "minimums." It's certainly a useful additional cue and may help reduce workload or catch an occasional oversight, but I would view it as an enhancement rather than something that addresses a fundamental safety concern.

 

[Davidl13]

We were flying ILS approaches long before electronic audio alerts became a thing. I don't think pilots were routinely plowing into the ground in the old days because they didn't have the GPS lady calling out "minimums." It's certainly a useful additional cue and may help reduce workload or catch an occasional oversight, but I would view it as an enhancement rather than something that addresses a fundamental safety concern.

agreed

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And from your response, I can only conclude that you still haven’t gone back and carefully read what I actually wrote, including the logic and risk analysis behind my workflow. That is probably why you “can’t see how.” You’re arguing against a characterization of my position that isn’t my position.

And you're refusing to help me understand your position better.

As for “the entire industry,” that’s an enormous claim. Which industry?

Single-pilot Part 91 IFR? Two-pilot airline operations? Part 135? Military aviation? Garmin G500/600 TXi-equipped GA aircraft?

The part of the industry that flies unsuspecting paying passengers using professional pilots and crashes airplanes the least.

If there is an FAA standard, Garmin guidance, industry standard, or other authoritative source establishing that programming an automated minimums callout is the accepted “best practice” for the type of single-pilot IFR operation we are discussing, please provide it. I’ll happily read it.

Unfortunately, such things are contained in documents that are property of the air carriers and are thus not available for public consumption.

That also means that people who are interested in being safer can't learn from what good air carriers do and use it to inform their own practices.

And I am *NOT* saying that a single pilot in a piston single should always be doing what an air carrier in a multi-crew jet does. I fly in both of those segments right now, and I've even been a Director of Safety at an air carrier that flew both singles (turboprops, though) and multi jets. So, I do think through these things from multiple perspectives.

But, after being in that position, I have changed quite a bit about how I fly. One of the biggest issues with being a single pilot is that you don't have another person there to catch the human errors that we all make. So, I have tried to build cross-checks into my procedures such that I have a better chance of catching my own errors.

I've done probably 2000 hours of flying without benefit of a minimums bug. I'm still in the habit of calling out the altitudes to minimums, and always will... But I would never presume to call it "safer" to not have that backup.

I agree with you that trying to change the minimums bug inside the FAF would be an unnecessary distraction, and I would not do so. In reality, after this thread, I think I will take @RussR's recommendation and simply go missed in the highly unlikely event the approach degrades. I could simply change the altitude in my head that I'm calling out 500, 200, 100 to, but there's really no downside to simply going missed and setting up for the degraded approach as well as trying to figure out why the approach degraded, unless you've already had an electrical failure or an engine issue. The likelihood of those occurring at the same time is vanishingly small; but falling back to that manual altitude callout would still work.

And perhaps drink one less cup of arrogance coffee and follow the risk analysis you have developed for yourself. I’m perfectly comfortable with you reaching a different conclusion than I do. What I object to is your insistence that your conclusion must therefore be mine.

I'm not insisting that you do it the way others are telling you... But I am saying that it's safer to have an additional thing to cross-check against. If you want to ignore that, go right ahead - Just don't expect us all to tell you that it's safer. It's not.

 

[Lindberg]

One additional thought, because I keep coming back to the 99% / 1% premise in your comment.


I think that premise is actually in direct opposition to much of what we train for as pilots.


Your engine works 99%+ of the time. We train extensively for the tiny percentage of time that it doesn’t.


Your alternator works almost all the time. We prepare for when it doesn’t.


Your gear comes down virtually every time you select it. We still learn the emergency extension procedure.


A great deal of aviation training is specifically about being prepared for the low-probability event before it happens, because that is precisely when preparation matters most.


If we’re talking about buying an airplane that satisfies 99% of your missions, I completely agree with the argument — don’t compromise the other 99% chasing an obscure 1% mission.


But that’s fundamentally different from risk management in the cockpit.


In this case, the 1% scenario is literally the scenario I’m trying to stay ahead of.


My concern is precisely the 1%. I don’t want to develop a procedure that depends on an automated minimums alert because it works 99% of the time. I want my normal procedure to work exactly the same way when something changes or the automation isn’t available.


That’s why I brief the applicable minimums and actively call my altitude remaining to minimums.


The 1% isn’t a reason to dismiss the procedure — it’s the reason for the procedure.

I have no opinion on the underlying thread topic, being a clear-blue VFR pilot only. But I take issue with this logic.

We train for 100% of the situations we will encounter, the 99% and the 1%. But our standard procedures are based on the 99%. The procedures based on the 1% are called "Abnormal (or Emergency) Procedures" for a reason.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think I will take @RussR's recommendation and simply go missed in the highly unlikely event the approach degrades. I could simply change the altitude in my head that I'm calling out 500, 200, 100 to, but there's really no downside to simply going missed and setting up for the degraded approach as well as trying to figure out why the approach degraded

I did the switch from ILS to LOC exactly one time. In that one, the GS needle centered normally and stuck there. It took a low altitude alert from ATC for me to catch it (my bad).

But in that case, it was my home airport, it was an approach I knew like the back of my hand, I knew exactly the danger, and the ceiling was well above even circling minimums. So I climbed back up to the LOC altitude for that segment (there was a stepdown on the FAS) and continued. Take away any of those, and it would have been a missed and reset.

Funny thing in terms of this thread. That was old school. No GPS, not even DME in that airplane. In something more modern, there would be a piece missing - having loaded the ILS, the stepdown altitude would not be shown in the flight plan. Another reason to go missed.

 

[RussR]

I agree with you that trying to change the minimums bug inside the FAF would be an unnecessary distraction, and I would not do so. In reality, after this thread, I think I will take @RussR's recommendation and simply go missed in the highly unlikely event the approach degrades. I could simply change the altitude in my head that I'm calling out 500, 200, 100 to, but there's really no downside to simply going missed and setting up for the degraded approach as well as trying to figure out why the approach degraded, unless you've already had an electrical failure or an engine issue. The likelihood of those occurring at the same time is vanishingly small; but falling back to that manual altitude callout would still work.

The problem, of course, with the idea of "I'll just switch minimums if it happens" is that it's real life, and real life reactions and confusion happens.

I've lost GPS integrity several times, some of those which resulted in a downgrade from LPV to LNAV.

Now, this is often trained on in the simulator during recurrent, but there in the simulator you KNOW why it's happening - you don't even think about it. More likely, you'll say "oh shucks, there went that pesky LPV again, I guess I'll have to use LNAV minimums" and you continue. You probably don't even try to troubleshoot or consider that you did something wrong. No big deal.

But in the real airplane it is much more confusing. The last time it happened to me, fortunately we were VFR, but still both of us up front had several seconds of "okay, what did you do?" "Did I load the approach right?" "I wonder if someone in maintenance turned off SBAS for some reason" "maybe try to re-load it?", etc., on like that. It was definitely short-term disorienting, even VFR. Of course, since we were VFR we just continued visually, to learn later that it was a no-kidding solar storm affecting that area of the country, and we had taken off before the NOTAM went out.

Another time it happened to me, it turned out to be a corroded antenna connection. And that's the problem with the "just continue the approach" method - you don't really know WHY the GPS lost signal or whether it's going to get worse. Antenna connection? Ice on the antenna? Antenna fell off? Cabling issue? Software issue? Firmware update causing problems? Operator error? Even something like cutting in too close to the FAF can cause some boxes to not activate the CDI scaling correctly.

Continue the approach in IMC? Unless I know I'm about to break out anyway, no thank you. I'll take it up and troubleshoot in a nice lazy holding pattern somewhere.

The same is true of the "lose the glideslope, revert to localizer only" idea. Maybe there are a few fewer things that could have gone wrong, but still there's going to be a period of significant confusion. Especially with older CDIs, which just park the glideslope needle in the center if it loses signal - hey look I'm perfectly on glidepath all the way down! As a CFI I've seen pilots miss those "off" flags many times, it's not out of the question for them to assume the glideslope came back and they're right on path because of their amazing luck. (I think that's a type of confirmation bias, see the fatal Korean Air 801 crash at Guam for a great example of "seeing what you want to see".) And since like with the GPS you really don't know what's going on with the antennas/cables/radios/ground transmitters anyway, best to go missed and troubleshoot.

Again, pilots may think they know what they're going to do and how they're going to react when faced with a situation, but you really don't know until you're faced with it. And unfortunately in these scenarios, the normal training methods don't really help because you know you're in training and that stuff like that is going to happen.

 

[Hang 4]

The problem, of course, with the idea of "I'll just switch minimums if it happens" is that it's real life, and real life reactions and confusion happens.

To pile on a bit. It's unlikely you have the plate for the LNAV or Localizer only approach handy. It's not just the minimums, it's also the step-down altitudes. I'm going missed and figure it out in a hold as @RussR suggested.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To pile on a bit. It's unlikely you have the plate for the LNAV or Localizer only approach handy

Why would you say that? Perhaps you don’t, but the pilots I’ve flown with have the approach plate out when they are flying an approach.

Might be an issue if using Garmin SmartCharts, but not otherwise.

 

[RussR]

To pile on a bit. It's unlikely you have the plate for the LNAV or Localizer only approach handy. It's not just the minimums, it's also the step-down altitudes. I'm going missed and figure it out in a hold as @RussR suggested.

Well, to be fair at least with US FAA and Jepp charts, the additional lines of minima ARE right there on the same chart. So looking them up is not a big task. My issue is that there are lots of ways you could get that downgraded signal, but only one of which where it would be safe to fly the approach with the higher minimums. Add to that the temporary confusion and disorientation (and the existence of un-briefed and potentially undisplayed-on-the-FMS/MFD stepdown fixes) and it's just not a good idea to fly it IMO.

 

[Hang 4]

Why would you say that? Perhaps you don’t, but the pilots I’ve flown with have the approach plate out when they are flying an approach.

Might be an issue if using Garmin SmartCharts, but not otherwise.

Well, to be fair at least with US FAA and Jepp charts, the additional lines of minima ARE right there on the same chart. So looking them up is not a big task. My issue is that there are lots of ways you could get that downgraded signal, but only one of which where it would be safe to fly the approach with the higher minimums. Add to that the temporary confusion and disorientation (and the existence of un-briefed and potentially undisplayed-on-the-FMS/MFD stepdown fixes) and it's just not a good idea to fly it IMO.

My bad, was thinking (incorrectly) that there was a separate chart for the non-precision approaches with step down altitudes. My point was it's more than just minima if you lose LPV or the ILS glideslope.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why would you say that? Perhaps you don’t, but the pilots I’ve flown with have the approach plate out when they are flying an approach.

Might require some undesirable head and/or arm movement at a critical time. In my plane, I've got a yoke mount which I would rate as "OK", but it's nowhere near as good as my first preference: Split screen PFD with the approach plate right there in front of me.

 

[Rick A]

We were flying ILS approaches long before electronic audio alerts became a thing. I don't think pilots were routinely plowing into the ground in the old days because they didn't have the GPS lady calling out "minimums." It's certainly a useful additional cue and may help reduce workload or catch an occasional oversight, but I would view it as an enhancement rather than something that addresses a fundamental safety concern.

I agree with the opinion the altitude reminder is useful for those who like it and appreciate electronic bells and whistles as a redundant layer of altitude awareness backup.

Maybe because I've gotten into a long standing routine and style of paying a lot of attention to the altimeter, the DH and MAP, combined with what may or not be seen visually approaching the point of continuing or going missed, I have not yet integrated an audio reminder into adding something new. My approach routine that has been working very well for a long time.

There's just a short list of audio alerts I want to hear when flying: Traffic Traffic, the Stall horn, and the Gear Horn. Any additional audio I categorize as a Bitching Betty distraction and have grown to appreciate the silence of everything looking and working as planned.

So much of today's electronics that are new and useful, are just that. But not yet considered by me for adding to the existing routine's list of what to; set, adjust, program and brief before descending deeper into the clag.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My bad, was thinking (incorrectly) that there was a separate chart for the non-precision approaches with step down altitudes. My point was it's more than just minima if you lose LPV or the ILS glideslope.

That is more accurate. You might or might not, depending on several factors. For an easy example, there’s a big difference between

1. An ILS OR LOC with a DME stepdown fix in the clouds for which loaded the approach in your GPS, and
2. An ILS or LOC with no stepdown where you break out shortly after crossing the FAF.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Might require some undesirable head and/or arm movement at a critical time. In my plane, I've got a yoke mount which I would rate as "OK", but it's nowhere near as good as my first preference: Split screen PFD with the approach plate right there in front of me.

Funny, I still prefer the yoke mount plate, just as I did before EFBs.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Funny, I still prefer the yoke mount plate, just as I did before EFBs.

Change is hard.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We were flying ILS approaches long before electronic audio alerts became a thing. I don't think pilots were routinely plowing into the ground in the old days because they didn't have the GPS lady calling out "minimums."

People were, then and now, hitting obstacles below minimums and/or plowing into the ground but we didn't/don't have any way of really knowing what went wrong, so the NTSB checks the "pilot error" box and we all move on. In fact, there was a PoAer that was killed in a crash that this might have happened to (@trombair).

The whole point of using all the tools you have available is to reduce that pilot error potential as much as possible.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Change is hard.

Change is bad…that’s why I’ve been wearing the same pair of underwear for the last 15 years.

 

[Hang 4]

There are two things people hate; the way things are, and change.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Change is hard.

Speaking of change, I really like SmartCharts