Monitored Approaches

[LJDRVR]

Hey Folks,

I was watching a youtube video of a KC-135 shooting a low-vis approach into Mildenhall.

The video terminates with the AC commanding and the CO performing a missed approach procedure, which got me wondering:

Are there any airframes out there where crews utilize monitored approaches? I was just curious. I never did em' until I ended up at the airlines, we use them for all approaches of a mile or less visibility. At any rate, I'm writing an article for the IFR newsletter and need to begin from a "know your audience" standpoint.

So,

• 
  
  
• Who does them?
  
• Mandatory or optional?
  
• If optional, are there any prohibitions against a crew performing one?
  
• General thoughts and feelings are welcome.
  

I'll hit this from both an operational and historical standpoint, covering both the civil and military side of things. (There was a lot of bleed-through both ways in the early years.)

Thanks!

LJDRVR

[Ram]

I'll caveat this post by saying that I'm NOT a crew-airplane bubba. My idea of a "monitored approach" is to fly a non-radar approach while a qualified radar controller on the ground monitors my alignment/glidepath to back me up in poor Wx/visibility. I'll comment from that perspective. If it's not what you need, disregard everything after "hello."

Some bases have a local reg that recommends monitoring (when available) when Wx is below a set minimum. I've done a couple of these, and it's no big deal...you just get handed off to a final controller freq (much like a PAR/ASR), check-in with the controller, and fly your approach.

The level of "controller intervention" has been a little different almost every time I've flown with monitoring. Some controllers will give you an advisory "approaching glidepath, wheels should be down" and others will pipe-up when you're a bit off the localizer. Other controllers will just STFU and only key the mic when they see you doing something that appears dangerous...and this is what I prefer (if I wanted a PAR, I would have asked for one).

Most of the time, I like the idea of a monitored approach. For a single-seat guy like me, it's one more guy in the loop who can QC what I'm doing and make sure I go home to my wife that night. If my nav gear goes tits-up inside the FAF, it's especially nice to have the controller ready to take over (if he's qualified).

Back when I was an IP at Sheppard, we'd have PAR-qualified controllers monitoring our solo students at night as they flew their ILS. Again...I think it was great to have another guy watching what was going on to make sure that unrated solo guys with less than 5 total night hours wouldn't smack their T-38s into the ground.

[LJDRVR]

Thanks for the response Fury.

The type of monitored approach I was referring to is when one pilot is responsible for the airplane on instruments all the way down to minimums. They remain heads down in the instrument environment. The PM is actually the guy who lands the airplane. It makes the standard transition from gauges to visual a little bit easier and increases your chance for a successful approach.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Seeing how the only crash in our airframe has been a direct result of low vis ops, pilots get hammered pretty hard on being ready for low vis work. To my knowledge there's no specific requirement that says you MUST fly a certain way, it is a CRM technique that pilots can use to provide the best possible means of performing the safest approach. There are three major schools of thought on how to do this.

1. Pilot flies/pilot lands. The way this goes is that the pilot who flies the approach flies the airplane the whole time. The copilot monitors the approach and assists, but does not do the flying. Generally the CP will call go around if something unsafe develops such as an excessive sink rate, getting too slow, etc, but will not generally call go around simply for not seeing the runway. The inverse of this method is possible (CP flies, CP lands)

Pros: Guy landing has warm hands and is already into the flying frame of mind, airplane is trimmed how he likes it, etc.

Cons: Transition from instruments to visual can be difficult and requires a very fast cross check. It's possible to lose sight of the runway environment while looking down to check instruments and have difficult re-acquiring what you were just looking at outside before looking down.

2. Copilot flies/Pilot lands. With this one, the CP is dedicated to the instrument approach, and only the approach. He flies the best possible approach, while the pilot is outside just about the whole time looking for the runway environment. Once the pilot has the runway in sight, he takes over and performs the landing. The inverse of this is also possible.

Pros: Transition from instruments to visual can be easier, as presumably the pilot doing the landing already has a good view of the runway environment before taking over control.

Cons: Guy doing the landing takes over with cold hands and has to very quickly get up to his A game for a very challenging landing.

3. Autopilot flies/pilot lands. This works kind of like method 2, but the AP flies the approach instead. This would not work so well in the E-8, as the autopilot is questionable at best for flying an approach, but would work better with a more trustworthy autopilot.

Pros: Both pilots can dedicate more time to looking outside to see the runway environment

Cons: The AP must be totally trustworthy. Also, without autothrottles (another fun thing the E-8 lacks) you need to keep a close eye on your power to prevent getting slow. The cold hands issue from the CP/P method is also in play here.

I've flown with guys who use all methods. PF/PL seems to be the most popular, but I've only done it in no-kidding down-to-mins weather a few times. I'd say my preferred method would be PF/PL, so long as your crosscheck is good. This is definitely something to brief up as early as possible, and BOTH guys need to be spring loaded to go around BEFORE things get ugly, because bad WX can mask an ugly situation until very late in the game. If you break out and are not already in a pretty safe position to land, it's time to go around. Bad WX is not the time to try to save a bad approach. My 2c at least.

[pirate]

Thanks for the response Fury.

The type of monitored approach I was referring to is when one pilot is responsible for the airplane on instruments all the way down to minimums. They remain heads down in the instrument environment. The PM is actually the guy who lands the airplane. It makes the standard transition from gauges to visual a little bit easier and increases your chance for a successful approach.

I am a Herk guy in the reserve. I have done them but they are not standard at least where I am (I would guess 30% do it). The guys that usually brief them are the airline pilots. It seems to work well especially when the weather is realy bad or there is some other complication like a high runway offset, a strange missed or a place where the runway blends into the city (like Guat city).

The nice thing is that when the PM calls field in sight they do not have to talk the PF's eyes on to it. It's not a big deal when you are landing a 10K runway here in the US but there are some places overseas that I have been where I think the transfer of controls saved the approach. Not that a missed is a big deal but the beer and girls are on the ground so the sooner you get down the sooner you can chase them.

[LJDRVR]

Thanks for the insight. The first monitored approach I shot was in a Lear 35. We just briefed it and tried, no real guidelines. With the type of flying I do now, we shoot them anytime the surface vis is less than 5000RVR. 2500 or less include an autoland. (We've got the autopilot, something a lot of airframes don't.)

The structure includes a very detailed monitored approach briefing where responsibilities, callouts and procedures are reviewed. We even discuss what would constitute us abandoning the approach once the transition to visual is made. In my environment, the go-around can be executed right up until the TR's are deployed.

The CO flies the approach, with the AC serving as PM. The philosophy being that the more experienced set of hands is responsible for the trickiest part. Although procedures vary by operator, most have the PM make a:

"Approaching minimums, I'm going heads up" call at 100' above.

At minimums, if the PM has the runway environment in sight, the call is:

"Minimums, I have the aircraft." and the landing is made. The choice of verbiage here is critical - notice it's not "Minimums, landing." We reduce the urge toward continuation bias with that.

If the runway environment is not in sight, the PM says nothing, and the PF automatically flies the missed as briefed.

The use of the "no callout" for runway not in sight is to declutter. If the CO is flying and the little minimums bulb on your ADI starts flashing? That's it.

This has the added benefit of the person performing a low altitude, IMC go around is heads down and all warmed up.

You brought up an excellent point about cold hands, but I believe that is offset by having made the visual transition completely, thus avoiding a lot of potential for SD and illusions such as diving under or shallowing out, both common with a pilot trying to transition.

One of the things that surprised me about the video was the lack of callouts and the AC making a call to the command post on #2 just a couple of hundred feet above the runway. Why do we persist in the notion we're good at multi-tasking, when the physiological evidnece show otherwise?

Thanks for your contribution. I think there are a lot of lost opportunites for learning and growth when our two cultures don't ignore each other. I think we could both make some substantial strides in airmanship if we occasionally got together. Some adult beverages could be consumed also.

Not that a missed is a big deal but the beer and girls are on the ground so the sooner you get down the sooner you can chase them.

Amen.

Edited October 29, 2009 by LJDRVR

[StoleIt]

This is a pretty interesting subject from a Human Factors/CRM stand point.

In my old CRM class we would shoot approaches with the FP (flying pilot) just doing all the flying and then the landing. NFP would handle navigation, comms, checklists, etc, and have his head outside the plane on approaches.

Note, this was all in a sim. The flights we actually had (in a light twin) all ended up being VFR and we just shot visuals.

[GKinnear]

Disclaimer: I've been drinking after a later night EP sim...correct spelin' & ritin' is opshunal

Just my $.02

It brings up an interesting question about HUDs. How often are they done in an plane with one? Without a HUD, a monitored approach for a CatII ILS make a certain amount of sence, since you're only roughly 100AGL at your DH. But with a HUD, the PF can monitor the CDI and G/S and have his eyes outside for the landing environment (at least in a C-17 and I assume a J-model 130). The only monitored approach I've seen in 17's was on a PAR where the CO was inside running the AP, heroicaly keeping up with the controllers directions(I'm pretty sure ATC controllers in theater are FAA rejects), and the AC taking the controls at 250A when the runway became visible out of the duststorm. I agree, with the caveat of having a HUD, that the PF on an approach will be better suited to landing out of one, especially if its a Co.

Airlines, and I'm speaking from inexperience here, may push the monitored approach technique to cut down on missed approaches, which would cost time and money. Thoughts?

[Ram]

Thanks for the response Fury.

The type of monitored approach I was referring to is when one pilot is responsible for the airplane on instruments all the way down to minimums. They remain heads down in the instrument environment. The PM is actually the guy who lands the airplane. It makes the standard transition from gauges to visual a little bit easier and increases your chance for a successful approach.

Ah, I'm retarded. Obviously, this is why you meant "crewed aircraft only." Mah bad.

As far as the "transition from gauges to visual" goes, all of that is MUCH more easier when the LOC/GS and Flight Director are all up in the HUD, along with A/S and ALT. Just stare through the flight path marker and data, and the runway appears in the HUD glass. In essense, "put the thing on the thing on the thing" and land. No big whoop. :)

[tcf5566]

I'm from the 135 community (Mildenhall actually so I know the guys in the video you watched). I'd say that monitored approaches as you describe them are pretty rare in our airplane. I've only done one in the jet in the year and a half that I've been here. It worked out really well, the AC flew the approach and I took over and landed when the runway was in sight. I think weather was about 300 & 1/2 to 3/4 or something, so not quite mins. However I'd say that a lot of the reason that they are rare in our airframe is because most people's only experience with them is in the sim and our sim isn't the best quality when it comes to the actual landing, so a lot of people take over when they have visual and just because of how the simulator reacts, the landings end up a little squirrely. In the actual jet, from my one time doing it, I think that it can work quite well.

[Guest TheBurt]

LJ,

My .02. My company also does monitored approaches per our FOM, so it is mandatory for certain approaches and wx conditions. I bet someone here could find para # in 11-217, but I think the gist is that 11-217 says that it is a good technique. My point: 11-2C130 vol 3 does not give a specific procedure for accomplishing a Monitored Approach, we are not trained how to accomplish a monitored approach, ie. academic courseware, simulator initial and recurrent, bubble sheet requirement on a LCL pro. I believe the Air Force should come up with a procedure and training for this valuable method, however, DO NOT try a monitored approach "off the cuff", in actual IMC until you have practiced a few and learned the pit falls and some CRM skills in accomplishing this type of approach, it is CRM intensive. If you get some xtra time at the sim, try one there.

[LJDRVR]

Thanks for the info guys!

Sounds like the procedure is not unheard of, but not necessarily trained and part of the day to day toolbox.

Anybody from the C-21, Freddy or Herc community want to chime in? Also, I'd be interested to hear from the C-40 and 89th airlift community.

[craino21]

It's definitely a pretty well known technique in the helo community, and is generally how I fly all approaches, even practice ones in VFR. I'd say it's about 50/50 whether guys do it or not. Of course, most of our guys get nosebleeds when they get high enough to be on instruments, but it's definitely not unheard of.

[Herk Driver]

Thanks for the info guys!

Sounds like the procedure is not unheard of, but not necessarily trained and part of the day to day toolbox.

Anybody from the C-21, Freddy or Herc community want to chime in? Also, I'd be interested to hear from the C-40 and 89th airlift community.

Not typical in the -130, but I've used the technique of having the CP fly and then take over to land the airplane at mins before. Not practiced very much as we tend to fly our own approaches and landings, but it is something that we have (or had) started talking about more in CRM and/or IRC classes. DOn't know very many people that use the technique though.

[LJ Driver]

The MC-130H uses the monitored technique as standard when doing our self-contained tactical approachs. While not an instrument approach in the strictest ways, it does bring you down to 200' in IMC. The copilot always flies it, the pilot always lands it, and the nav always makes the calls to get us on glideslope and course while the flight director cue drects the airplane down the pipe. Overall, the method works really well and I like it for all the reasons described above. For normal instrument approaches we have no standard but I do know some guys that use the typical monitored approach method.

Ironically, the reason we do this is a holdover of the Talon I days when the pilot would wear NVGs that had no inside the aircraft capability (due to a rubber seal enclosure around the eyes). The copilot was required to fly the self-contained approach without night vision while the pilot would be looking outside on NVGs to find the runway. Even now, when the pilot takes over the copilot and nav make calls of altitude and airspeed until we are on the ground.

[busdriver]

I've briefed this occasionally. The biggest reason I see is that when the weather is really close to the limit at night (helo guys are on NVGs, and we can cut the vis requirements in half) there is a really good possibility of re-entering IMC after calling "visual." If my co has remained on instruments the whole time, he will have a much less difficult time transitioning back to instrument flight. In other words, it's not the transition from instruments to visual that's the problem, it's the "oh shit" we're inadvertent IMC and have to transition from visual to instruments. If you look at accident trends, helos that go inadvertent IMC have a poor record. At least that's my thought process on the technique.

[60 driver]

My civilian job (cargo airline) uses monitored approaches as well. As noted above, the Captain builds and briefs the approach, FO flies the approach and go around if required, Captain takes the aircraft for the landing. At my airline they're required for all Cat II and III approaches, all Cat Is with RVR less than 2400, and all nonprecision approaches with weather less than 1000/3. From that list it sounds like every approach would be monitored, but in reality we probably end up flying them less than 10% of the time.

[BigFreddie]

I've never seen a monitored approach in the C-5 yet. The closest I came was when an AC said, "Copilot, you have the yoke" on a landing with high crosswinds. All he wanted to do was have me hold the crosswind controls and all he got was the "dog watching TV" look in return since I was so new and had never heard such a thing. Which brings up a great point already mentioned - don't do this crap at the last second without talking it over first (as a minimum) and maybe practicing in VMC.

Freddy has a pretty good A/P and most folks let "George" fly the majority of their approaches (easier that way - requires box manipulation skills not "real" flying skills). Our CAT II approaches are coupled until darn near minimums - minimums not lower than 100A. Now that the newer avionics are in a large number of C-5s, the use of auto-throttles makes these approaches much easier.

I think a monitored approach has its merits but is not commonly used. I haven't heard a lot of people doing these either in other airframes. I also think that if these were more common it would be beneficial but we'd also see new requirements to do them semi-annually or annually...

BF

ETA: And who would log which beans? Now you'd have to go and do another approach so everyone's beans would be good to go. Point is - the need to log beans sometimes drives the training we get.

Edited November 3, 2009 by BigFreddie

[LJDRVR]

Thanks so much for all the input. I began working on the article today, I'll make sure to post a link.

This subject brings up an interesting thought:

What other areas could airline and military aviators learn from each other in? Sort of a cross-pollination of ideas, procedures, techniques and observations? What would that mechanism or venue look like? In a way this already takes place due to the scores of former military aviators that populate our flight decks. Conversely, Guard and Reserve units get a pretty wide sampling also. But straight active duty can remain somewhat insulated.

Never happen in a million years owing to political, marketing and budgetary considerations, but it sure would be nice to see.

It would be great just to have an excuse to get some of y'all into our jumpseats, so we can go drink beer and chase flight attendants!

Edited November 4, 2009 by LJDRVR

[LJ Driver]

Thanks so much for all the input. I began working on the article today, I'll make sure to post a link.

This subject brings up an interesting thought:

Never happen in a million years owing to political, marketing and budgetary considerations, but it sure would be nice to see.

It would be great just to have an excuse to get some of y'all into our jumpseats, so we can go drink beer and chase flight attendants!

Well fellas, since no one else wants to do it, I'll take the bullet and be the first to volunteer for this gig... It's gonna be a big ole pain in the ass, but at least I'll learn something. LJ, where do I sign up?

Edited November 4, 2009 by LJ Driver

[Guest Hueypilot812]

But with a HUD, the PF can monitor the CDI and G/S and have his eyes outside for the landing environment (at least in a C-17 and I assume a J-model 130).

The C-130J has a HUD that's also certified as a Primary Flight Display. I just had my Cat II sim today, and the PF did both the approach and landing. It's not really that hard with a HUD, since it will display where the runway is on your HUD before you even see it. A monitored approach might be a good thing for C-130E/H crews but there's no real advantage IMO in the J. The PF is already looking outside.