Why did the pilot go around? The runway was just there!

This video discusses a misconception among some instrument pilots.
Follow me on Facebook: / 1140864699685560
Support me: \www.paypal.com...

[@SniperHarry]

15,000 plus hours and absolutely I would have gone around. In those conditions, when I heard "Approaching Minimums' I would have been preparing mentally for a go around. Edit to add: Perfectly explained. Perfectly executed.

[@podulox]

00,000 hours and I was committed to go around at *exactly* the right moment... I could *TOTALLY* not land a plane!

[@NicolaW72]

Yes.

[@guilhermemross8739]

No is the answer for your question, Captain. Thank you.

[@edstoro3883]

That was a VERY deceptive approach. The roads that paralleled the runway on both sides gave the illusion of "runway below me". Granted it could be the camera did not give the proper information, but I can see where some pilots would have continued the approach below minimums, and snuck in. And then congratulate themselves for being 'ace' pilots. Hardly professional!!! The general public have little appreciation for the professionalism required to be an airline pilot. Also:...very nice explanation for novices and professionals.

[@jeffbridges666]

Well explained 👏

[@naijapilotxmax6006]

Thank God we have you in Nigeria 😍

[@nickabiri4286]

THANK YOU . GREAT VIDEO !! . All the best from The USA.

[@SuperFullin]

Very very good! Thanks for the excellent explanation. Happy and safe flying. Cheers from Brazil.

[@vladimirfromukraine419]

I think the approach lights must be switched on in the such weather condition. They were not switched on during the first approach.

[@NicolaW72]

Happy landing! :-) Thank you very much!

[@sverigeaao5196]

Excellent explanation!

[@johnamatiello8759]

Why are the approach lights not turned on in the first approach? In the second approach you can clearly see them starting just after the VOR. In the first approach you see the VOR before minima but no approach lights. Also in the go-around you clearly see that there are no approach lights. Probably a mistake from ATC. But good decision to go-around in the first approach.

[@FlywithMagnar]

I cannot answer that question. When we landed, there was an airplane holding at a taxiway, waiting to enter the runway. They arrived about 30 minutes before us. Whether the approach lights were on when they landed, I don't know. The cloud base can also have changed during that period. Low clouds like this can pulsate up and down.

[@enigmawyoming5201]

Nice explanation and clear examples. I subscribed! I’m here because Mentour Pilot here in KZbin recommended you to his followers.

[@FlywithMagnar]

Awesome, thank you!

[@Aliquis.frigus]

Which Mentour video was that?

[@flavion1259]

Hi Fly, my answer is "Go Around" because once reached the decision altitude DA or (DH) published on the approach map the runway threshold or lights was not visible .🧑‍✈ 👨‍✈

[@podulox]

Now I feel more able to not bother landing an aeroplane... Thx ;)

[@TheSurrealGoose]

Another fantastic video, Captain. I would like to hear your thoughts on the new Embraer turboprop design with the engines at the rear.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

No birds were hurt in the making of this landing

[@lhw.iAviation]

I remember not that long ago, I had perfect visual on the runway and was on the perfect glide path and airspeed. I still went around… Why? I just wanna practice go-around

[@bonbondesel]

I would not have landed honnestly. At the minimum no visual references of the runway. Once you make a decision, you're committed. The worst thing is to retropedal or hesitate. Decisions must be firm in aviation that's what I learn. No improvisation in the last second. If the runway is visible just a second after the minimum it doesn't care, requirements were not met the second before. Just go around and focus on doing well the procedure then come back to try again. I'm a simple former private pilot and that's what I learned.

[@kripakaransamuel3966]

👍👍👍

[@derekmurray5585]

Great videos!!

[@christopherpeters5916]

A few seconds more could save thousands

[@NakedMuso]

Perfect example.

[@christopherpeters5916]

Hard decision

[@postsfromiyke]

I will land if I saw the approach lights even the threshold

[@christopherpeters5916]

Were the lights on

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

when planning a go-around, would you allow the plane to ever dip below the minimums altitude line, or do you plan for the control & power response time such that it will be at level or climbing before the time the altimeter says minimums?...

[@FlywithMagnar]

When flying a 3D approach (ILS or LNAV/VNAV), the minima is defined as Decision Altitude (DA). The descision to go around is made at this altitude. When initiating the go-around, the aircraft will dip below DA, but this is taken into account when constructing the procedure. When flying a 2D approach (VOR/LOC/NDB/LNAV), the minima is defined as Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA). The aircraft must not go below this altitude. The pilot will then add 30 or 50 ft to MDA and make the decision at that altitude. During approach, we never level off at DA/MDA. The final approach is flown whith a constant gradient.

[@MartinNeep]

4:39 Were there really that many u/s lights in the ALS or was it just an affect produced by the camera?

[@FlywithMagnar]

Nothing wrong with the camera. This is Africa.

[@mrunlucky4085]

i think they went around because they could not see very far down the runway to judge a flare or the required distance to land if they float

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

also, if you exit a fog-bank into good visibility after initiating go-around, given you are still in a position from which you can (accounting for the new velocity and altitude AGL) touchdown with a sufficient safe braking distance remaining; are you allowed to preform an "Accidental ToGA Glideslope Recovery maneuver" and land long? or would regulations prevent you from attempting to do so? if it is allowed, what would your position be on such practice... safe/unsafe/best-avoided?

[@FlywithMagnar]

When you have decided to go around, you stick to that procedure. Changing your mind and try to land will result in a lot of trouble. Safety first.

[@stonebear]

Curious question: Does ICAO have the allowance (as US FARs do) that once you see the approach lights (among other things) and have the required flight visibility, you may descend to 100' above the runway, at which point you either have the runway proper in sight or go around? I was thinking that b/c on the second approach, right at "approaching minimums" the "decision bar" was clearly visible which for this Yank would've triggered an automatic "continue", but would that be true in Africa or New Guinea?, where ICAO rules apply? (The thing about the 100' rule is that unless there's an absolute wall of fog right on the threshold, if you can see the decision bar from 200-250' you're *going* to see the touchdown zone when you get to 100'. It can happen! there's a VASaviation video where CAT-1 airliners were going around one after the other b/c they could see the runway *down* through the fog at 200' but when they got down to 100' the thick fog over the numbers obscured the touchdown zone and edge lights, and around they went... but this is very rare.)

[@FlywithMagnar]

Thank you for your questions. ICAO is an agency of the UN. The US is a member of UN and therefore, like all other UN members with an aviation authority, a member of ICAO. ICAO doesn't issue rules, but Standards and Recommended Practices. FAA issues rules based on ICAO's Standards and Recommended Practices. All other ICAO member states do the same. A little sidenote: It's a common practice to talk about FAA licenses, EASA licenses and ICAO licenses. This gives the impression that there are three different standars for aircrew licensing. This is wrong. A license issued by FAA is based on ICAO Annex 1 "Personnel licesing". A license issued by an EASA member state is based in ICAO Annex 1. A license issued by DGCA India is based on ICAO Annex 1. A license issued by CAA Australia is based on ICAO Annex 1. And so on. The standards for all-weather operations are described in ICAO Doc 9365 "Manual of All-Weather Operations". In chapter 6.2.1, it's written "For approach and landing, they [aerodrome operating minima] are an expression of the minimum altitude or height by which the specified visual reference should be available and at which the decision to continue for landing or to execute a missed approach should be made." This is well known for all instrument rated pilots. But, there's more: "They are also an indication of the minimum visibility in which the pilot may have the visual information necessary for continued control of the flight path of the aeroplane during the visual phase of the approach, landing and roll-out." In other words, ICAO says that the pilots must have at least the same visibility as they had at minima all the way down to landing. And this requires a continuous evaluation of the visibilty, not only at 100 ft, which appears to the a rule used by FAA alone. In the training syllabi for ILS Cat II approaches, the instructor will, when you are at 50 ft, reduce the visibility to zero, prompting you to go around.

[@jameschen9099]

If it is an MDA you can maintain the MDA and look for the runway ? How many seconds can you stay at the MDA before you execute the Go Around ?

[@FlywithMagnar]

Zero. This is a thing of the past. We never level of at MDA, unless we do an approach for circling. On the video, we made an ILS approach. When we reach minima, and don't have the required visual references, we go around. All non-precision approaches are flown as CDFA - continuous descent final approach (unless specified in the approach procedure). RNAV allows us to fly the final approach with a continuous descent. It's very accurate, and it has improved flight safety. Therefore, when we reach minima, we act like we have flown an ILS.

[@jameschen9099]

@@FlywithMagnar thanks for the explanation. great tutorial.

[@AVIATIONSOUNDEXPERT]

Which airport was this?

[@рафаэльмирзоян-е3л]

Hello Magnar, thank you for videos👍How can I ask you some questions, tell me please your e-mail🙏

[@FlywithMagnar]

Click on my profile, then select About, and you will find my email address.

[@Kami9302]

Thank you for the clear explanation. Very clear and easy to understand.

[@NicolaW72]

Indeed.

[@melvinriga465]

Thank you so much Captain 👍

[@imagine9033]

Simple and clear

[@a.r1994]

good decision.

[@Oferb553]

Thanks!

[@culturevulture3382]

I want to fly with you or pilots like you Magnar! No impulsive pilots thanks!