Lower Won't Work

While we usually train by flying right to minimums and then frequently flying the missed, how often in our actual flying do we miss and do it again, or divert to an alternate? How often do we get caught by surprise when the ceiling were expecting to break out of is lower than we thought (or lower than we need)? For those of us operating under 14 CFR Part 91, how often do we consider or actually find ourselves pushing the looser legal limits of landing under IFR?

Elaine Kauh

Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

The article highlights the critical dangers of deviating from IFR textbook procedures and pushing operational limits in real-life, deteriorating weather conditions.
A fatal Bonanza crash illustrates these dangers, where the pilot successively diverted to multiple airports in low IMC, ultimately attempting an approach at Charlevoix with weather significantly below minimums (200 ft ceiling, 1-mile visibility).
Despite hazardous conditions, the pilot descended below the minimum descent altitude and attempted a circling approach, resulting in a stall and crash, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to minimums and timely missed approaches.

See a mistake? Contact us.

There’s always that difference between a textbook procedure, such as an approach to published minimums, and real-life conditions that are rarely so clear cut.

While we usually train by flying right to minimums and then frequently flying the missed, how often in our actual flying do we miss and do it again, or divert to an alternate? How often do we get caught by surprise when the ceiling we’re expecting to break out of is lower than we thought (or lower than we need)? For those of us operating under 14 CFR Part 91, how often do we consider or actually find ourselves pushing the looser legal limits of landing under IFR?