Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Instrument Maneuver Spotlight: Non-precision Approach

July 18, 2025/by Eric Radtke

Unlike precision approaches that offer vertical guidance, nonprecision approaches require the pilot to manage descent rates and timing without the aid of a glide slope. This maneuver demands strong situational awareness, precise altitude control, and effective use of available navigation equipment—all essential skills for IFR proficiency.

Practical IFR: Does Your Approach Use the Wrong Minimums?

July 15, 2025/by Jeff Van West

It’s visibility that controls whether we can land or not. While on paper that’s a number we have or don’t, it’s not so simple in real life. We must make a rapid judgment call—sometimes based on a glance—as to whether we’re getting enough visual information to call the flight visibility half a mile. Or three-quarters of a mile, or two miles, or whatever.

Instrument Maneuver Spotlight: Non-precision Approach

July 18, 2025/by Eric Radtke

Practical IFR: Does Your Approach Use the Wrong Minimums?

July 15, 2025/by Jeff Van West

It’s a dark and stormy night. You’re instrument current and proficient. Your bird is well equipped. But you’re concerned because the reported ceilings have been going up and down on both sides of the published minimums.

To which I say, “Who cares?”

Seeing Is What Matters

Put yourself on the approach and descending. You will either break out to see something, or you won’t. It’s binary; one or the other. If you see nothing before the prescribed moment arrives, you commence the missed approach. Simple.

If you see something … well, now you must judge.

And there’s the key. It’s visibility that controls whether we can land or not. While on paper that’s a number we have or don’t, it’s not so simple in real life. We must make a rapid judgment call—sometimes based on a glance—as to whether we’re getting enough visual information to call the flight visibility half a mile. Or three-quarters of a mile, or two miles, or whatever.

That’s why I want to know what I expect to see when that moment arrives. Am I expecting the approach lights with a green threshold and not much more? Am I expecting half a runway visible, but 20 degrees left of my nose?

I think it’s our training where we don foggles, fly down to an altitude, and then go missed that gets us so focused on altitude. In real IFR, what we need to be focused on is distance: When we get down to X, how far should we be able to look and see Y?

This kind of thinking also allows for a certain consistency. Fly the approach to DA/MDA, period. Somewhere along the way, visibility should get high enough that we can continue past DA/MDA for landing. we note the visibility coming into view—and continue on the approach until it’s operationally beneficial to think “landing.” When vis is really low, that’s probably about 50 feet AGL.

When I read NTSB reports, the instrument approach crashes seem to fall into two categories: grossly botched at altitudes well above the +500 or even +1000 people set as personal minimums, or unknown flying into the trees or approach lights at the very end of the approach. Ceilings weren’t the issue on the first ones, but visibility is a likely culprit on the latter. I think we do ourselves a disservice assuming these are “duck unders” where pilot descended too low. I’ll wager an overpriced 4-pack of craft beer the majority were continuing past DA or MDA into questionable visibility that wasn’t IMC … but wasn’t sufficient to safely find pavement. This phenomenon might get worse rather than better given the prevalence of following an advisory glidepath on LNAV-only approaches. It’s super tempting to continue past MDA with just enough visibility to convince yourself you can find the runway, but not quite enough visibility to make it a sure thing.

That’s why I’ll happily try an approach where the AWOS is calling a bit below minimums for DA or MDA, so long as the visibility is good beneath. It’s also why I won’t bother with an approach with visibilities too low for likely completion, even if the ceilings are several hundred feet above the published minimum. Not sure you agree with this thinking? Here’s a challenge for you: Fly a given approach both ways in a simulator with decent visuals. Make it something other than an ILS or LPV with 200-foot and 1/2-mile mins for clarity. See which one you feel more confident about.

Commercial operations usually work the same way; visibility rules.

Sure, there’s value in noting the ceiling versus MDA/DA to see if there’s even a chance, but if it’s close, go for it. While I don’t particularly buy in to personal minimums at all, if I was setting a personal minimum for approaches, it would be by visibility, not ceiling.

Maybe you don’t really worry about visibility at the end of an approach? If you can see some runway, you just land? Your call, but that really is in violation. And while I will admit to knowing it’s possible to find the runway and land in RVR 800, I only do so knowing the statue of limitations is up on that knowledge. And I swear the flight visibility was higher. Really.

But now I’m (luckily) older and (thankfully) wiser. Today, visibility is what matters.

Watch This Video

Lower Your Personal Minimums

Canadians See It Differently

chart

Fly in that country north of the border and this discussion changes in regulation, if not in practice. In Canada, prior to the FAF, visibility is controlling for both commercial operators and GA. The details are complicated, but roughly, commercial operators need 50 to 75 percent of the published visibility minimums to commence the approach. GA operators need at least RVR 1200 or 1/4 mile visibility. (Again, I’m being broad-brush here.)

Once past the FAF, however, the published visibilities on Canadian approach plates, “are advisory only. … They are not limiting and are intended to be used by pilots only to judge the probability of a successful landing.” In Canada, if you reach DA/MDA, can see the runway environment at all, and decide there’s enough visual information to land successfully, you can go for it.

However, I agree completely with my friend and Canadian pilot David Gagliardi when he says, “Why on earth would you continue any approach when the visibility is less than a quarter mile? The chances of you successfully completing it are basically zero; the chances of dying are not zero.”

ForeFlight Question of the Month

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Instrument Maneuver Spotlight: Non-precision Approach

Practical IFR: Does Your Approach Use the Wrong Minimums?

Instrument Maneuver Spotlight: Non-precision Approach

Practical IFR: Does Your Approach Use the Wrong Minimums?

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Instrument Maneuver Spotlight: Non-precision Approach

Practical IFR: Does Your Approach Use the Wrong Minimums?

Seeing Is What Matters

Watch This Video

Lower Your Personal Minimums

Canadians See It Differently

ForeFlight Question of the Month

Email Subscription

Recent Articles