I guess you are just mentally checking if all is good while you have dropped the gear and the flaps down way earlier on the approach?
Now every approach is different so less chance to get a reinforced learning on a give plate but most instrument procedures take a lot of time for you to notice something wrong with the conficuration, the special points to get “systemic pre-landing” checks on approches are Hold, IAF, FAF and visual? the FAF seems the most sensible for those who lacks auto-discipline :)
Same, I was taught the same on the Arrow to call “RGB” on final and configure for landing on base leg of visual circuit (at least you will not miss anything on straight final)
I was always taught to brief the leg at which I would configure the aircraft as it is different for different procedures.RBG I usually do as my final check list, having made the decision to land. I still do Red Blue Green in the DA42 even though there is no Red or Blue, its habit after having been drummed into me during training. Of course Beechcraft usually used black levers for the props instead of the blue used by Pipers and others. I used to stick a blue label on them in the Baron just in case I might get them confused with the throttles during an engine failure.
Coming back to the stunt in the (now deleted) video. I cannot understand how anybody can cheer it; in fact all the „well done“ comments were full of sh**.
I know a pilot who did that exact thing – „just trying“ an ILS approach at zero vis / fog in Augsburg two years ago, with passengers, in a C340.
Outcome was a burnt down wreck, two guys in the burn treatment unit, and lawsuits all over the place.
I think it’s just reckless and stupid behaviour.
It seems to be a convention that most Youtube comments are made by the most brainless people. I think there is a whole population out there which just sits on YT all day commenting on videos. I once met a guy who said he does that on Imgur – a once-fashionable picture sharing site where people can comment.
My feeling is that this guy was illegal but not in the most obvious way. He probably saw the tiniest trace of the approach light system (maybe just one element) at 200ft, which makes further descent, down to 100ft, legal in FAA-land (but not in EASA-land). One cannot assume that is the runway because it could be any row of lights e.g. such things are common on sports stadiums. But he didn’t see the “runway environment” at 100ft; he got it at maybe 50ft, mostly due to the visibility being poor (and below the plate figure). So I am not surprised he pulled the video. What surprised me is that he put it up there originally. I would have passed it by a few friends (pilots who know the rules) first…
Well known pilots do attract attention all around. The forums are full of “CAA” employees. It is believed that half the UK CAA spends its teabreaks browsing pilot forums – no doubt EuroGA also. And most/all pilot forums have CAA employees posting on them under nicknames. One UK site has both of the two people who make the initial prosecute / don’t prosecute decision, posting in a sometimes “interesting” manner under nicknames (one of them runs two characters on there) and thus attracting potential fights which could then lead to “additional and rapid attention” when the other person does some transgression. It will be the same in Germany, in France (where the DGAC is very involved at ground/club level) etc. And the FAA is no exception; I found a senior FSDO inspector on one US site who helped me with the Sandel SN3500 field approval 
Whether what he did was dangerous, can be debated. A stabilised ILS below CAT1 minima, at a major airport, is argued by some to be fine. Airliners do it all the time, though they switch from the ILS GS to radar altimeter vertical guidance at around 150ft.
Isn’t it the same in EASA-land? At DA you have to see something of the runway environment, which includes also the approach lights. Also, the decision to go-around is made on a precision approach at DA, so if you would decide to go around, you would sync through the DA altitude a bit in the go-around procedures. That is what some would argue to use a derived DA, so to add e.g. 50 feet to your DA. However, you can legally make the go-around decision at DA altitude.My feeling is that this guy was illegal but not in the most obvious way. He probably saw the tiniest trace of the approach light system (maybe just one element) at 200ft, which makes further descent, down to 100ft, legal in FAA-land (but not in EASA-land). One cannot assume that is the runway because it could be any row of lights e.g. such things are common on sports stadiums.
When flying a non-precision approach with an MDA, I have understood it to be that you can not sync through that MDA altitude, so if you would fly the non-precision approach as a CDFA approach, you would be better to add some feet to the DA, so you would not sync through.
In this video, the pilot sees “something” at DA, being possibly a bit of the approach lights. He cannot confirm it is the approach lights, but he is fully established on the ILS (radio signals based) and has the runway in sight on his synthetic vision screen (GPS based) and then sees visually a bit of the approach lights where expected.
I am not saying it is advised to go this way, but am not sure if it is legal or not.
AeroPlus wrote:
I am not saying it is advised to go this way, but am not sure if it is legal or not.
Seeing a single flashing light or row of the approach lights is not sufficient in my opinion as the regulation requires that the pilot have the flight visibility stated on the chart. So with RVR of 2400 feet on an MALSR, one should be able to simultaneously see the 5 sequenced flashers and the first two rows of the segment lights of the approach lights at the DA. The video never showed more than a single flasher or three segments simultaneously (mostly one or two), so I think he would be in serious trouble with the evidence in the video. The flashing sequencer lights repeat the sequence every 0.5 sec with the time between adjacent lights only 33 MS.
I am fairly sure that over here you are supposed to see the start of the runway at the DH.
Does anyone know?
Whether what he did was dangerous, can be debated
It definitely has a hugely lower safety margin. All minima are set so they make accidents extremely unlikely. Some of them, such as 1000ft above rhe hifhest obstacle within 5 miles are a bit ridiculous these days with real life nav precision, but ILS visibility minima are not to be taken lightly.
So while this time it went well, and he can maybe get 999 of 1000 approaches like this in accident free, it is a lot worse than the 999,999 in a million it should be.
Peter wrote:
A stabilised ILS below CAT1 minima, at a major airport, is argued by some to be fine. Airliners do it all the time, though they switch from the ILS GS to radar altimeter vertical guidance at around 150ft.
Can you elaborate on this?
No need for an approach like this on the edge of visibility unless no CAT2/3 available. Switching from ILS GS to radar altimeter → do you mean because of sensitivity/accuracy below 200ft?
Peter,
Nothing to do with radio altimeter. In Cat I RA is not requirement, therefore no rules about it. Of course, you may use it, but it’s beyond and regulations. Therefore in CAT I all procedures based on barometric DA. For LVO ops lower then CAT I, the radio altimeter is a must for precise DH determination [ 100 feet, 50 feet] . In EASA land :) , at DH you have to see the runway lights, or the element of the approach lights to enable you to continue. Period. It is very subjective what do you see, but basically you have compare your trajectory with the runway (or the ALS ) and continue it visually. I always train people, to keep watching GS tendency, keep it centered, because usually less experienced pilots tend to go above GS with the euphoric feeling of the visual condition :).
Previously, the aircraft has to be stable by 500 or 1000 feet AAL, which gives you a stabile flight path at 200’ too. So, if you see the lights at 200 feet, you may keep the A/P on to its ( Non autoland )limit which is 150 feet, where you definitely visual with the runway. But this is 747 or 737.
