 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Pilot for major air carrier questions whether the high minimums policy for newly qualified capts results in greater safety or actually detracts from it when forced to make missed approachs and diversions that wouldn't have been necessary if regular minimums were employed.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 604094 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200401 |
| Day | Sat |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : buf.airport |
| State Reference | NY |
| Altitude | msl single value : 2300 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | IMC |
| Weather Elements | Fog Snow |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tower : buf.tower |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach landing : missed approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 70 flight time total : 16000 flight time type : 70 |
| ASRS Report | 604094 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | flight crew : executed missed approach |
| Consequence | other |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Weather Company FAA |
| Primary Problem | FAA |
Narrative:
My concern is with the application of the higher minimums, visibility increase of 1/2 mi and 100 ft additional ceiling. After going through 8 different schools at my air carrier I generally feel most efficient right after school because of all the minimum approachs we do in the simulator. I have to argue the point that the higher minimums for new equipment capts made me do 3 missed approachs and a diversion back to dtw from buf, instead of landing in buf after 1ST approach (other aircraft were landing). Such requirements do not make me a safer pilot. ATC had me at 3000 ft going in wrong direction for 5-6 mins then 10000 ft for another 10 mins because cle radar wouldn't take the handoff. Which is safer, the regular minimums for landing or the alternative?
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PLT FOR MAJOR ACR QUESTIONS WHETHER THE HIGH MINIMUMS POLICY FOR NEWLY QUALIFIED CAPTS RESULTS IN GREATER SAFETY OR ACTUALLY DETRACTS FROM IT WHEN FORCED TO MAKE MISSED APCHS AND DIVERSIONS THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF REGULAR MINIMUMS WERE EMPLOYED.
Narrative: MY CONCERN IS WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER MINIMUMS, VISIBILITY INCREASE OF 1/2 MI AND 100 FT ADDITIONAL CEILING. AFTER GOING THROUGH 8 DIFFERENT SCHOOLS AT MY ACR I GENERALLY FEEL MOST EFFICIENT RIGHT AFTER SCHOOL BECAUSE OF ALL THE MINIMUM APCHS WE DO IN THE SIMULATOR. I HAVE TO ARGUE THE POINT THAT THE HIGHER MINIMUMS FOR NEW EQUIP CAPTS MADE ME DO 3 MISSED APCHS AND A DIVERSION BACK TO DTW FROM BUF, INSTEAD OF LNDG IN BUF AFTER 1ST APCH (OTHER ACFT WERE LNDG). SUCH REQUIREMENTS DO NOT MAKE ME A SAFER PLT. ATC HAD ME AT 3000 FT GOING IN WRONG DIRECTION FOR 5-6 MINS THEN 10000 FT FOR ANOTHER 10 MINS BECAUSE CLE RADAR WOULDN'T TAKE THE HDOF. WHICH IS SAFER, THE REGULAR MINIMUMS FOR LNDG OR THE ALTERNATIVE?
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.