IFR: A Real Missed Approach

Join me on an IFR flight from Boeing Field in Seattle to Hoquiam on the Washington coast. I wanted to exercise the Bonanza after an oil change and other maintenance (I had already completed a couple of local VFR test flights). The weather was marginal VFR around Seattle, but a typical layer of coastal low clouds and fog shrouded Hoquiam, a good setup for practicing an RNAV approach at the normally sleepy KHQM before diverting to Bremerton to top off the fuel tanks.
As you’ll see, however, this flight included a couple of twists, including an ad-hoc hold en route to allow a preceding aircraft to complete its approach. And when I arrived at the DA, the reported variable ceiling wasn’t so variable. I had to fly a real missed approach.
To learn more about IFR flying, visit my blog: bruceair.wordpress.com/

[@neilhutson8823]

That was fantastic. Thanks for recording. The comms was particularly useful

[@johnhoss2950]

Nice Job! Excellent self control to not pull a charter pilot move and sneak down.

[@chadthornton7597]

Beautiful flight with a touch of cloud surfing. Nothing better.

[@indochine06]

Great video, really good example of excellent radio work

[@2oqp577]

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. He did exactly that.

[@victor.in.command8806]

What an amazing Job!

[@krasw]

Love the videos, but I would like to see more of the camera zoomed to instrument panel to understand what happens.

[@aviatortrucker6285]

Beautiful job! Makes me further want to work on my IPC. Come to think of it after your missed, the controller never responded with a correct read back.

[@jamostew]

Enjoy your videos. In the hold, why the 30-second timer? Was that for a segment or a turn?

[@BruceAirFlying]

I'm not sure what you're referencing. I think that I entered 1 minute for the leg timing. You may be seeing my standard 30-minute timer on the GTN 750, which I use as reminder to switch fuel tanks.

[@maxcorder2211]

Viewers would appreciate a closer focus on the instrument panel rather than mostly out the front windscreen. Excellent flying job.

[@BruceAirFlying]

You'll find many videos here that include closeup views of the panel. I try to provide different perspectives so that you can compare what's showing on the panel with outside views. On occasion, a problem with a camera precludes the closeup view.

[@maxcorder2211]

@@BruceAirFlying I'll check them out, thanks.

[@jimpowell9205]

I’ve often wondered about the ‘missed approach’ requirements since Jimmy Doolittle did the very first instrument approach to ‘zero feet’ (that’s right in ground fog), in 1928! I’m guessing his ‘pucker factor, had to be high. He had nowhere’s near the cockpit instrumentation, this Bonanza has…………! Just saying, it’s way past time to reduce, the IFR approach requirements, with this level of capability.

[@BruceAirFlying]

If you're suggesting that DAs and MDAs be reduced to CAT II/III standards, don't hold your breath. A host of issues beyond just the ability to navigate to the runway (via features such as synthetic vision) mean that won't happen. For example, aircraft performance. Can you meet the required climb gradient to avoid obstacles if you do have to go-around? Publishing more lines of minima to accommodate a variety of aircraft equipment isn't feasible. Each set of minimums must be flight checked and reviewed periodically. Can pilots of light GA aircraft consistently and safely fly approaches to DAs below 200 AGL and visibilities less than 1/2 mile, as both lateral and vertical guidance become more sensitive? Can a single pilot safely and reliably transition from instruments to visual cues when descending below 200 AGL and in visibility less than 1/2 mile?

[@jimpowell9205]

@@BruceAirFlying your comment begs the question, was Jimmy Doolittle super human, so much more than are we? Especially, now that we have so many tools at our very fingertips! I for one am tired of using standards, written for the ‘weakest link’! After all, we are all beaten into our brains, by our flight instructors, ‘if you have doubts, go about’. I for one would have no problems descending below 200’, in a Bonanza equipped like this one. As I said in the beginning, it was done 5-yrs short of a century, ago. Without any Nav aids (loran only), or the ‘game-changer’ - GPS(waas)…….

[@BruceAirFlying]

Doolittle was doing tests under controlled conditions. That's a far cry from day-to-day operations in the real world in a system that includes thousands of runways and highly variable conditions.

[@jimpowell9205]

@@BruceAirFlying and just how does an aircraft, equipped as well as this one, know the difference? It doesn’t! But the pucker factor of the pilot does!

[@BruceAirFlying]

The aircraft, of course, doesn't know whether it's in the clouds or flying in the clear. The so-called pucker factor is certainly an issue. But for a better understanding of the challenges involved, consider how the FAA (and other regulatory agencies) have handled the use of enhanced vision systems (e.g., infrared cameras) and their effect on approach minimums. See especially 14 CFR 91.176 (www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91?toc=1). You might also review the requirements for flying to CAT II minimums. It's possible for a Part 91 pilot flying an airplane like my Bonanza (but with additional equipment such as a radio altimeter) to earn a CAT II authorization, if you can find a FSDO willing to do the work and you're willing to meet additional training and currency requirements. Someday, we light-GA pilots may be able to use synthetic vision and other similar technology, to fly below what are now the standard minimums. But that day is a long way off for many good reasons. The challenges are not as trivial as might first appear.