Another Alpine crash - near LOWZ, SR22 D-EPRB

@EuroFlyer what is the distinction between cloudbreak and IFR approach? the MAPt bellow MSA?

My bothched approach one day was being visual with surface at 1200ft agl, stayed above GS and tried to fly VFR in 2km vis to find the runway (funding it was hard, landing was even harder luckily flat land and runway was 2.8km so long enough to overshoot at VNE), the same thing was dead easy with 300ft ceiling in better visbility

My take: you fly to the MAPt (irrespective of clouds or what you see), you then look outside if you see the runway (not the ground), Yes/No, Land/Go-Around

Obviously, this is not the case here, ceiling was way bellow minima, so the pilot was not VMC at the MAPt…

I am not instrument rated but isn’t the LNAV minima at LOWZ 2390ft AGL? It seems to me that LOWZ METAR would have made it obvious that the conditions are far below the minimums. Isn’t that right?

Malibuflyer wrote:

Are there any other IFR-Field in Europe, where the MA does not go over the runway?

Must be at least half a dozen, if not more in Norway alone.

lenthamen wrote:

The SR22 has a Go Around button on the throttle which activates the Missed Approach and sets the FD accordingly.
The issue here could be that the pilot was navigating to the airport in HDG / VS mode and once he realized he needed the Missed Approach he was still following runway heading…

I just have to ask the IFR rated GA pilots here. Is it a common thing to simply assume every approach is the same, and everything can be done on autopilot regardless of what the plates say?

What about this approach?

IMO this accident is a usual VFR into IMC accident. The approach has very little to do with it, except it enabled the pilot to enter the situation easier or more surely than if the flight were VFR from the start (but, AFAIK he didn’t do a proper IFR approach either). From that point though, a text book VFR into IMC accident.

I agree the pilot was almost certainly in IMC around the missed approach point and probably at the crash site too, but it’s worth making a few general points about IFR:

• an IAP is an IAP and you can fly it “as published” – whether it is called a “cloudbreak” or whatever
• a ground observer cannot reliably tell in-flight conditions – see my post further back with an example of layered cloud
• avionics vary; I suspect a SUSP is a Garmin thing
• most pilots don’t really know their avionics (I know of a syndicate SR22 which was flown (navigated) on an Ipad the whole time) and especially not the detailed behaviour for flying IAPs
• most instructors don’t know modern avionics well and especially not the IAP aspects
• we don’t know this pilot was attempting to fly the published IAP at all (that may come out if/when radio calls, or leaks from airport staff, get published)
• we don’t know if he even had an IR
• an approach ban is meaningful only if there is RVR reporting equipment installed
• in virtually all cases you don’t need GPS guidance to fly the missed approach (at least initially)
• it is fine to embark on an IAP even if the METAR suggests you won’t get visual at the MDA – METARs are generally inaccurate especially when you look up the reporting criteria around the airport

Ibra wrote:

what is the distinction between cloudbreak and IFR approach?

In the case of LOWZ, the plate is explicit that IFR ends at the MAPt (unless you go around), so the actual landing is done according to VFR.

That, surely, is just playing with words

You are supposed to be visual with the runway at the MAPt – regardless of whether your original IFR clearance is still in place.

Every landing is done according to VFR

I especially like the highlighted bit (my emphasis). It’s not easy to cancel IFR much after you landed

Basically they are saying that after you become visual you are joining the published LOWZ circuit pattern, etc and you are not entitled to any special treatment. It’s a bit like the French law saying that you aren’t allowed to do a straight-in if the tower is unmanned.

avionics vary; I suspect a SUSP is a Garmin thing

Suspending approach mode at MApt which will then automatically load the missed approach is built into all IFR GPS. It does require pilot action. It is a fail item if not carried out on FAA check rides.

Will check the KL94 button for this, but if G1000 one of the soft keys changes to SUSP at MApt.

Not enough emphasis on this aspect in EASA training.

The KL94 shows a ‘fence’ at the MApt as it will not automatically sequence beyond the MApt. The pilot is required to use the Direct button and the box will select the first waypoint on the missed approach. This logic may be different to Garmin where the SUSP function loads the missed approach, and I presume, in active leg from MApt mode and not Direct TO mode.

Here is the explanation from the KL94 manual

The following steps would need to be performed if a missed approach is required.
10. Upon reaching RW17 and not seeing the runway you decide to per- form a missed approach. Remember, the KLN 94 will not automatically sequence past the missed approach point. This is shown on the NAV 4 page by not showing any lines connecting way- points that are past the MAP. Until the missed approach procedure is initiated the KLN 94 will continue to provide guidance along the 176° FAF to MAP course and the To/Fr indicator will indicate “From.” To perform the published missed approach procedure, press D to bring up the direct-to page. The default waypoint will usually be the first waypoint of the missed approach procedure. In this case the first way- point is the missed approach holding point ANQUM. Confirm this waypoint as the direct to waypoint and press F.

RobertL18C wrote:

Suspending approach mode at MApt which will then automatically load the missed approach is built into all IFR GPS. It does require pilot action. It is a fail item if not carried out on FAA check rides.

Will check the KL94 button for this, but if G1000 one of the soft keys changes to SUSP at MApt.

Not enough emphasis on this aspect in EASA training.

Indeed. You have to know how to do this. It can be as simple as hitting the TO/GA button on some installations. On others a key on the navigator. If you can’t do this you should not fly GPS approaches as you can’t fly the missed. And even if the missed is defined by terrestrial aids (as often in the UK), flying it in GPS nav is always the easiest way in a high pressure situation.

Peter wrote:

most instructors don’t know modern avionics well and especially not the IAP aspects

It’s not that they don’t know – it’s the sheer variety of avionics these days that makes it hard. I am very sure, that every IR-instructor is very familiar with at least one navigator. And 20 years ago there has only been the Garmin 4/530 so every instructor was extremely familiar with “every” navigator.

Today there is Garmin 4/530, Garmin G1000, Garmin GTN, Avidyne, etc.

Most end up getting the IR ticket at school aircraft (this was my case for IRR) and then learn their way through later, also, one would avoid doing IR training in their own aircraft unless instructor/examiner is very familiar with their aircraft (when debugging, having two dumb avionics pilots does not help)

The topic is highly relevant in the UK where AP/GPS is big NO (plus most FI/IRI don’t fly private GA IFR for their own consumption), so you end up learning yourself of from other pilots (unfortunately past experience or natural selection)

This is probably less relevant here, Cirrus have own “IFR signoff”, so I guess lot of this is well covered in familiarization training, especially if one does this in the US

Nonetheless, one has to be aware of the accuracy required to fly a given IAP and how much leeway you have in the missed approach (or plan B if you miss that as well) are measured in meters/minutes for distance/angles