Like a true flying geek, I sometimes monitor the RNO approach control freq with my handheld while sitting here working. Last night, while it was snowing, and the ceiling was down, there was some interesting chatter.

A pilot called in to say he'd be holding for better conditions for the ILS approach. A few minutes later another pilot called in to ask if "the last guy had gone missed." The controller responded that the last pilot hadn't even tried the approach, that "he didn't have the silver." At first I thought, "geez, that controller is kind of pushing the boundaries there, does 'silver' mean 'balls'? Is he taunting the holding pilot?"

A few minutes later my question was answered when the controller queried the holding pilot, saying "according to my note here, your company should have and is certified for the Silver approach, why aren't you taking it? Is it a personal pilot thing?" The pilot responded that they had it, but company rules said they couldn't take it because the RNO middle marker was out.

As a greenhorn instrument student, does "silver" mean Cat II? Or is it the name of an actual approach here in RNO? I looked up all the official procedures on the NACO site, no "Silver."

Zane,
The 'Silver" ILS for 16R in RNO is Jepp Chart 11-9. It is different than the regular ILS 16R in that the decision height is 200 ft above touchdown zone, and the required visibility is 2400RVR, as opposed to 1100ft,and 4 miles. I don't know of an ILS with higher minimums than the ILS 16R. The "Silver" get's the minimums back to normal.
The missed approach is the kicker though. Because of the surrounding terrain, a 480ft/nm gradient is required. (about 1600FPM) Normally this is no problem, but certain malfunctions would make it difficult to meet that requirement.
Every company authorized to do this approach has a list of things that must be working in order to shoot the approach. We do not have the restriction about the MM, but each company will taylor the procedure to it's own aircraft.
RNO actually, can be really challenging if the WX is bad. The combination of wind, terrain, and airport location make for a nasty mix. In fact during initial qualification a whole sim session is dedicated to dealing with RNO.

Ahh ok, so it is a RNO specific thing. Is it avail to private and 135 ops too? Or just the company big metal? Is it something you and your aircraft have to be certified for, like a Cat II?

Thanks Bump, glad we have you pros around!

Yeah Zane,
It's a RNO thing. I just took another look at the plate, and the one thing that seems unusual is the climb gradient. I can't find any other notes about who is and is not allowed to use this approach. I'm sure if I cared enough to read through the regs I could find out more. I just hate reading regs. I think there should just be one reg: Don't hit nothin'. Everything else is for lawyers to figure out who's fault something was.
Good luck
Jeff

It's just about foggy time in the valley and if you guys operate in the San Joaquin you'll probably relate or have your own story. One winter, long ago (already sounds more intriguing than it was) I was flying from Columbia to Bakersfield in the 206 and knew they were zero / zero when I departed. Fog will usually burn off from the north and work it's way south as the morning progresses and that was what I was counting on at Bakerfield. (If I recall the reg ol' ILS is 200' D.H.) anway it was improving as I approached Bakerfield but there were still a lot of guys holding around the area and rather than joining them I shot the ILS three times before I finally got it. It was good practice and a lot less crowded than heading off on some radial to hold in VFR conditions on top. Once I got in you should have heard the comotion with with everybody asking for the approach. It was like opening a floodgate. Of course I had to hang out a Mercury and ask them "where ya'll been?"

Mark

A 206 with the flaps down should be a CAT III aircraft, It's so slow that you have a long time to find your way down. I know a guy that got violated for landing a part 135 C-172 when the tower was calling 0/0. Good times.

Bump,

I've taken off 0/0 from Columbia before (not commercial of course) when I knew we had blue sky about 1000 agl in fog. (BTW, you can reach Oakland Center from departure end of rny 17 to p/u clearance while still on the ground) Pine Mt Lake is really close if there was a mechanical problem and is above the fog. The trick is to somehow avoid the deer, that you can't see on the runway (at least your imagination says they are), while maintaining runway heading. Pucker factor is right up there...

Mark

I guess the question (for that 135 guy that got violated )would be - what did the tower call the visibility BEFORE he got to the FAF? If it was at or above his minimums then - he should have been golden. After the FAF it's "flight visibility" that is controlling. We use this to our advantage in SLC (under FAR 121) when the inversion (fog) hits in Dec/Jan all the time. The approach controllers ask us, "Hey Skypest 1234, what's your RVR (visibility) requirement today?" We answer and they go "fishing" for an acceptable RVR. When they get one, they clear us for an approach and we're good until the FAF (after that we're on our own... if we see it, we land). That is until some goofball calls up before we get to the FAF and asks for an RVR report and it happens to have gone down again! When everybody is aware of the rules, it all works pretty well.

We use the RNO SILVER ILS 16R at work as well. I think you (as an operator) can apply for approval to use it with the FAA. You give them your performance data and your special MAP procedures (i.e. a procedure that may differ from the published missed approach if you loose an engine). Once you gain approval from the FAA, they usually go on an observation ride to check you (the operator) out and then you're good to go. All this is supposed to keep you from hittin' nuthin...

Thank God for spellcheck!

Matt

speedbump wrote:...........................
The missed approach is the kicker though. Because of the surrounding terrain, a 480ft/nm gradient is required. (about 1600FPM) Normally this is no problem, but certain malfunctions would make it difficult to meet that requirement. ....................................
.

Bump, if 1600 fpm climb is required for 480 feet per nautical mile up, I figure the airplane is going a bit more than 3 nm a minute or 180 knots. I know Maules are faster than 170's but come on now. You must be talking about your "other airplane". Or am I goofed up? I'm not an IFR guy, so that's a distinct possibility.
If you were in your Maule using a speed of around 90 knots for your missed, seems like you'd need to be climbing at about 720 fpm or so to make that 480 ft/nm. Using a lower speed of around 75 knots, you'd only need to be climbing at 600 fpm.

Eric

Your math is correct, and I'm talking about a 737-300, in this example. Our go around speed is around 180knots, it varies with weight. We would clean up and climb out somewhere between 200 and 250 after that.
When we had 737-200s this approach was not approved because the old birds couldn't meet the climb graident.
The Maule suggestion is interesting though. Clearly I could initially climb steeper than the gradient, but there is no way I could climb even 600fpm all the way to 11,000. I wonder if it would average out?
I have zero desire to fly the Maule IMC in RNO during a winter storm. I was a CFII in Seattle for a couple of years, and can tell you from personal experience that Cessna must be a subsidiary of Frigidaire, cause those planes collect ice better than most freezers I've seen. It's a special feeling to see the wings building ice with no way to remove it.

Punkin, yeah they were reporting below minimums, and he shot the approach anyway. After more thought on the subject, I think it was at Bremerton, so there was no tower, just an automated system. I guess he figured no one would notice. Maybe he should've hit the AWOS machine

speedbump wrote:Punkin, yeah they were reporting below minimums, and he shot the approach anyway. After more thought on the subject, I think it was at Bremerton, so there was no tower, just an automated system. I guess he figured no one would notice. Maybe he should've hit the AWOS machine

Do the AWOS machines store the reports for a length of time? ( I think they would have to) If so, it would be pretty hard to argue he didn't bust minimums. On the other hand, if a report stated at some point that conditions were above minimums, could you argue you had a good report and switched to traffic freq. ?

Also, my instructor, that I trained with for my instrument ticket, had a little trick during foggy conditions in the valley where he would ask for minimum vectoring altitude near a field with no approach and when / if the field came into view he would go special vfr and or cancel ifr and land vfr. Ya' gotta' be tight with the controllers for them to work you with you on this one, in fact I'm not even sure they would bother these days.

What I'm saying is that someone noticed his little sneak, and reported it. I don't know all the details, but I would not be surprised to find out it was a competitor. This happened back in 1991 so it's a bit fuzzy now.