Training Approaches in Approach Ban

Timothy wrote:

That is not the point, for two reasons:

As instructors, we must be careful to operate within the law, so that we do not pass the message that it’s ok to go outside the law
If there were an incident, such as an airprox, or an engine failure in the go around, we would be exposed to criminal investigation.

“As Instructors”, yep, been there done that…..and you are trying to find away to change the intent of the law….it’s only a small step to “there’s an approach ban, we’ll call this training and find an excuse to land”

“we would be exposed to criminal investigation” …try telling that to the survivors of the cork incident ….3 blatant breaches of an approach ban, until they crashed.

Timothy, that point was not aimed at you, but if your suggestion became legit, I believe there are many who would abuse it.

it’s only a small step to “there’s an approach ban, we’ll call this training and find an excuse to land”

I agree with this. There are loads of flights where there is an FI in the RHS and that’s all you would need to legitimise the landing, because the final part (getting visual at the DH) is pilot-interpreted and thus unenforceable.

Does a training flight even need to have an instructor (or someone else than the pilot) on board?

I can think of a few corner questions but if this was respected in spirit I think it would be a good thing.

FWIW, the UK tax people do have a definition of a training flight and it does require an “instructor” (which I guess can be a CRI). This definition exists for the purpose of collecting duty on avtur burnt for private flying, which is supposed to be self-declared and paid but training flights are exempt

PeteD wrote:

“we would be exposed to criminal investigation” …try telling that to the survivors of the cork incident ….3 blatant breaches of an approach ban, until they crashed.

The Cork accident is relevant. The Metroliner carried out three approaches which all resulted in go-arounds in IMC. On the third, a mechanical fault caused asymmetric power application, and the crew lost control, presumably exacerbated by being on instruments rather than visual at the time. One might consider this as evidence in favour of the approach ban, in that the approach ban is intended to reduce the rate of go-arounds in IMC in an aircraft.

However, in light aircraft training, it is common to go around in IMC. The relative scarcity of good simulators means that the experience of a go around in IMC in an aircraft probably has a positive safety value for the trainee, and the risk of loss of control is acceptable. That a go-around is intended probably mitigates the risk a little. The overall risk picture is vastly different to an approach to land in the routine operation of a CAT flight.

Peter wrote:

I agree with this. There are loads of flights where there is an FI in the RHS and that’s all you would need to legitimise the landing, because the final part (getting visual at the DH) is pilot-interpreted and thus unenforceable.

To legitimise the landing you would also need a landing clearance (at least at towered airports) and you won’t get one if the intention is a low approach.

I can’t see any compelling reason why the approach ban should apply to training flights at all, they could easily be exempt. Using facilities would be good for both the airport (extra approach fees) and the pilot (flight in real IMC). Whenever I have done my renewals in IMC it was much more useful than flying with the artificial vision reducing aids, which are quite unlike real flight in IMC.

On the point about “abuse”, if someone breaks the approach ban but then lands safely because the airport proves to be above minimums, who is being abused? Where is the harm? Of course when the NAA gets to hear about it the harm will be to your pocket or your career, but that’s a different issue.