Yesterday I had planned a flight with my TB21 from Zurich to Siegerland with an intermediate stop in Mengen. The tower reported vis 5km and overcast 500 so I set up for the LPV approach for runway 26. I was hand flying the approach when close to the map my FD started to give absurd indications for a steep climbing turn to the left. I disengaged the AP and initiated the missed approach. I might have been at the edge of the reported ceiling but I was in solid IMC with nothing to be seen neither down nor forward.
I flew the whole approach again but this time down to the minimum. Reported weather was still the same but the reality looked completely different. At 300 ft AGL when I went missed again I could barely see something down but forward was still zero. I could not see one rwy light. I left the airport and flew to Stuttgart.
I checked the breadcrumb file super imposed on google earth and I could confirm being perfectly lined up with the rwy. Mentally, I was really set up to land as I was expecting to see something. I could not believe reality was so different than what the tower man was reporting. You start doubting your equipment, checking your settings and getting distracted when concentration should be highest. This is the first time ever I had to go missed in 15 years and then twice. I didn’t have a good feeling.
On my first missed on the breadcrumb file I could also see how I broke to the left. My foot work was not good but I hope there is a built in margin in the design of these approaches.
placido wrote:
I was hand flying the approach … I disengaged the AP and initiated the missed approach.
How do those two statements fit together?
And yes, some times the weather is below minimum, even if the observation from the Tower states otherwise. Luckily most of the time it is the other way round. I just come back from the airport because our flight was cancelled. Weather at destination was FZFG roundabout 800m visibility, OVC002 with BKN001 with not much change over two hours of waiting, so the passengers opted for a video conference instead of a visit at their customer’s site.
BTW: Good decision to divert after the second attempt.
what_next wrote:
How do those two statements fit together?I believe you need the AP to get the FD. So I guess the AP is on but not flying.
what_next wrote:
BTW: Good decision to divert after the second attempt.
Yes. It seems like a lot of accidents take place on the third approach.
yes, the FD can be engaged without the AP flying the aircraft.
Aviathor wrote:
Yes. It seems like a lot of accidents take place on the third approach.
I would go one step further. One should only fly a second approach if there is reason to believe the outcome could be different.
So in this case – FD acted up on the first one so it was aborted above the minimum. Trying again made perfect sense, he didn’t make it to the minimum in the first place.
If you get down to the minimum and all you see is the inside of the cloud, there is little point unless ATC reports an improvement in weather.
If you get down to the minimum and all you see is the inside of the cloud, there is little point unless ATC reports an improvement in weather.
Or unless you are trying to build up currency in real IMC 
I recall reading a posting by somebody who used to fly in some bizjet AOC op and he said every approach was flown to minima, looking down, even in CAVOK. Obviously this was a two-pilot op.
Peter wrote:
Or unless you are trying to build up currency in real IMC
Yes but that is different because you actually expect to go missed and there is no pressure to complete with a landing. It usually goes wrong when there is an element of gettheritis.
Peter wrote:
I recall reading a posting by somebody who used to fly in some bizjet AOC op and he said every approach was flown to minima, looking down, even in CAVOK. Obviously this was a two-pilot op.
That was our SOP when I flew BizJets and remains my SOP now single crew on a Navajo. I do it to remain current and so that there is no drama when I have to do it for real.
There is another thread running about what is going through your mind on the approach. If you stick to an SOP and keep your eyes in, you are not in a position of “expecting” an outcome. You just get to DA and decide.
The problem with flying to the DA on instruments as a single pilot is when some twat pilot who doesn’t know what the chevron on the map means, flies straight through the ILS
And legally he can. Class G is Class G.
I’ve had that several times at Class G airports (and once at LFAT which IIRC is Class D but he was talking to ATC in French) and had to break away the approach. One case was a Seneca at Lydd.
