Originally posted by MCM
View Post
I wanted to hear what YOU mean by tricky- I'm just a non-professional outsider "that only plays on MSFS".
I can go into black and white mode and say that the approach and missed approach is based off of offically-reviewed and officially-approved calculations and adequate safety margins and throw out the TERPS acronym to try to be cool.
Any instrument-trained and current pilot, using normal skill should be able to handle it...right ?
Then I can switch to sympathetic-flawed-human mode- To hell with TERPS and safety margins...a little hiccup at 150 MPH and CFIT (that has happened a LOT in the past and will probably happen again in the future).
As I look at the approach chart and the missed procedure, it looked like you only had to climb a few hundred feet and then make almost a classic teardrop course reversal, it looked like there were no major obstacles above that height within ~5 miles of the airport...and then sort of backtrack and climb to 5000 feet where you clear almost everything. "No big deal, right?"
OR
It's mountainous terrain...it would be rough with an engine out (even though that's figured in, right?), and we have operators making self-imposed bans on the Localizer to 18 at Birmingham at night and hard IMC...
Brief for no go-arond:
I get what you are saying about engine out stuff. AND I'm thinking it might be wise to brief that we REALLY REALLY REALLY do not WANT to go around (and that's NOT saying, this approach PROHIBITS go arounds nor that still might be times to go around- just that it's wise to avoid go arounds if at all possible.)
Just trying to read between the lines and pry YOUR opinion out of you
Is this approach markedly more nasty compared to average?
Thanks.
Comment