|
Aircraft Intercept Procedures
Notice Number: NOTC2636
Intercept Procedures
The FAA would like to remind all aviators of the procedures used if intercepted by air defense aircraft. During national security events, Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) are NOTAMed and enforced by NORAD interceptors. Due to the dire consequences of not following the correct procedures, it is highly advisable to be fully aware of what to do during an intercept.
These procedures have been updated in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) and Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), however due to the long publication cycles they will not be incorporated until August 25, 2011. Please take a few minutes and review the procedures and make yourself aware of what to do if intercepted. Intercept Procedures can be reviewed at: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Oct/Intercept_Procedures.pdf.
We have also included the Visual Warning System (VWS) information if you are flying around the Washington DC SFRA. More details including a video demonstration of the VWS are available from the following
FAA web site: http://www.faasafety.gov/VisualWarningSystem/VisualWarning.htm.
There will soon be a PowerPoint presentation that addresses Intercept Procedures from a US Air Force perspective. We'll let you know when that is available.
This notice is being sent to you because you selected "General Information" in your preferences on FAASafety.gov. If you wish to adjust your selections, log into https://www.faasafety.gov/Users/pub/preferences.aspx where you can update your preferences.
|
| The new WINGS–Pilot Proficiency Program is great! Check it out now! |
 |
| |
|
|
Mutliple attempts at the same instrument approach
|
Here's an excerpt from Thomas P. Turner's weekly email newsletter, Flying Lessons, on multiple attempts at the same instrument approach. You can sign up for Tom's email at www.thomaspturner.net
|
U.S. Federal air regulations give noncommercial pilots great latitude in most operations, with the choice of what’s prudent or safe—and not just legal—left to the judgment of the pilot. There is a valid assumption that the pilot-in-command will fly procedures to standards…and the standards assure a measure of operational safety.
Perhaps most notable within this latitude is a Part 91 pilot’s authority to fly instrument approach procedures when there is no surface weather observation, or even if an official observation reports conditions to be below minimums for the approach. We can “take a look” and, if the runway environment is not visible at the Missed Approach Point (MAP), we can safely climb away with assurance there are no obstacles in the murk.
We must be cautious, however, when exercising that authority. Pilots’ natural “can do” attitude, as well as the popular notion that the master pilot is one who can succeed where others fail, can trap the unwary. Take this recent example:
A Cessna Citation was being operated under Part 91. Seven people, including two pilots, were on board the aircraft. The pilot had made three unsuccessful attempts to land in fog before declaring an emergency while on the fourth approach. An NTSB spokesman said the left engine shut down during the third approach and the right engine shut down during the fourth approach. Fuel exhaustion is cited as the cause of the crash. Fortunately no one was injured.
Repeat attempts to fly the same approach when conditions clearly will not permit arrival are at best a waste of fuel. Whether it’s the “macho” pilot attitude (“I can make it”) or pilot resignation (“I have no choice but to try to land”), repeated attempts at the same approach may use so much fuel that by the time the pilot decides to divert there is not enough fuel remaining to reach an alternate.
Tom teaches that multiple tries at the same approach should be attempted only under these circumstances:
- Weather conditions are reliably reported as variable or improving, so that there is a realistic anticipation that the runway environment may be visible at the MAP next time around when it was not before; or
- You can identify a specific operational error you made on the first approach (for instance, missing the approach before reaching minimums, or being high on glideslope at the MAP) that you can honestly say you can correct on a second attempt.
If neither of these conditions exist, flying a second approach is merely a waste of fuel you may need to make it safely to an alternate. Further, history shows multiple approach attempts lead to pilot deviations, possibly from the stress of knowing fuel is growing short, pressure from passengers to get them to the planned destination, or a misguided feeling that if you go “just a little lower” or “a little bit farther” than the procedure prescribes that you’ll be able to find the runway. Third, fourth or fifth attempts at an approach only exacerbate these stresses, eroding your options and making an accident more and more the likely outcome.
The rules give us great latitude and procedures provide an acceptable level of safety no matter how many times we try, so long as fuel holds out. Human nature, however, reminds us to be extraordinarily careful when attempting the same approach more than once, because the temptation is to make it to the runway…or possibly die trying.
Questions? Comments? Email Tom at mastery.flight.training@cox.net
|
|
