Peter wrote:
The “the right co-owner’s lack of training in PBN operations;” is particularly nonsensical
I think by PBN, they meant GPS LNAV, not the specific concepts of PBN.
About attempting an approach below minima, actually you have to interrupt it 1000ft above ground if you know that minima will not be met. RVR was met but OVC20, you know you won’t see the runway at 500ft MDH. This is in addition to not set up the plane correctly…
About attempting an approach below minima, actually you have to interrupt it 1000ft above ground if you know that minima will not be met. RVR was met but OVC20, you know you won’t see the runway at 500ft MDH.
Note that controlling minima for continuing the approach is RVR, not ceiling. See EASA Air Operations MPA.305:
Commencement and continuation of approach
Regulation (EU) No 965/2012
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/VIS.
(b) If the reported RVR/VIS is less than the applicable minimum the approach shall not be continued:
(1) below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome; or
(2) into the final approach segment in the case where the DA/H or MDA/H is more than 1 000 ft above the aerodrome.
(c) Where the RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility.
(d) If, after passing 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the reported RVR/VIS falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the visual reference adequate for the type of approach operation and for the intended runway is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
(f) The touchdown zone RVR shall always be controlling. If reported and relevant, the midpoint and stopend RVR shall also be controlling. The minimum RVR value for the midpoint shall be 125 m or the RVR required for the touchdown zone if less, and 75 m for the stopend. For aircraft equipped with a rollout guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the midpoint shall be 75 m
Yes that’s the rules.
The RHS pilot (with an IR) was 71. He probably wasn’t familiar with RNAV ops (just guessing).
He was described as “IFR de beau temps”, which means that the examiner gave him his IR renewal because he trusted him not to fly approaches, or not to minimums.
The AP didn’t do RNAV approaches, the RHS was not current and probably rusty in IMC, not prepared to recover from the right seat with a limited view on primary intruments, ceiling was 100ft with minima at 690, they were configured for a fast approach (100kts+, flaps up).
In short, they were out of their game.
Let’s hope others learn from this story.
He was described as “IFR de beau temps”, which means that the examiner gave him his IR renewal because he trusted him not to fly approaches, or not to minimums.
Is that a new type of IR, available only in France? 
I cannot believe the IRE who did this guy’s last IR test would have admitted to BEA to having done something like that. I mean, why would an examiner stick his neck in the guillotine when the “student” is dead and thus cannot possibly spill the beans that his last IR test was bogus?
It is no secret that many IR pilots in France are not able to fly an approach in IMC to minimums. I have flown with one, in VMC fortunaltely
What the IRE did and confessed is common practice.
I checked the RNAV approach is a VOR/DME approach overlay, not sure if they have tuned VOR/DME as backup?
checked the RNAV approach is a VOR/DME approach overlay
Huh? The RNAV approach is an RNP approach. and the VOR/DME approach is a VOR approach.
For the rest, I agree with Juju, lots of factors that make the positive outcome of such an approach unlikely here. On IR revals, rest assured, it‘s the same in Germany… they are a farce. Almost anyone will pass, even if he would never be able to complete a „real“ IFR approach. Quite possibly, in the UK, IR revals are quite a bit more strict and „real“, on average.
So two guys who must have known they were nowhere near qualified try to fly an approach to OVC002 ? Seriously? Darwin Award, here we come.
Quite possibly, in the UK, IR revals are quite a bit more strict and „real“, on average.
Certainly are.
At least, the examiner will treat it is a training opportunity.
It was also like that on my FAA checkrides, mostly.
What the IRE did and confessed is common practice.
I still find it unbelievable Basically he is admitting that potentially everybody else he signed off has a bogus qualification.
