Search results

You didn't. The post I was responding to did. Don't play dumb. Or are you not just playing?

No, that is not correct. Did you read the thread? You need to touch down within 200 feet of the intended touchdown point, not the aiming point. Do you understand there is a difference between the aiming point and the touchdown point?

"Minimum float" is not the same as "no float." You are doing fine. The rule of thumb is to touch down within the first third of the runway. If you float 500 feet past the threshold, that means you can land in the first third of a 1500' runway. You are well within standards.

No, it isn't. 61.31(l)

The student isn't solo on a checkride. A solo endorsement is irrelevant. That does not apply to a practical test. 61.31(l)

The later versions of both models had taller instrument panels which reduced visibility. This started with the 172 "N" models (and possibly later "M" models as well, I'm not sure). Not sure any Cherokee 140s had the taller panel, but Warrior II, Archer II, etc. did.

Well, there is a difference between what's on the chart and what you're required to do. The chart provides headings, not courses, and they are provided for convenience, not a requirement. A wise pilot would adjust them in strong winds just like with an outbound leg of a hold.

The PT usually gives you 10 miles whereas a HILPT is much smaller. Also you are not required to do a 45/180/45 PT, you can do any reversal you want so long as it's on the correct side. So yes a HIL could be seen as more restrictive.

An engine mod STC wouldn't be expected to change the CG envelope. Some might come with a gross weight increase due to the higher power-to-weight ratio and better performance, if performance was the limiting factor of GW during original certification. The allowable center of gravity range is...

I don't know why they would, even accidentally, because it's just not the way we think about approaches at the airline. I think it's more likely they just ignored or deleted the FAWP. I had someone accidentally delete the FAWP on me once, a check airman no less.

And? At work, I've had to go to airports I've never been to and land on runways I've never landed on all the time. Nothing strange or tricky about the RNAV 10 at TPA.

I don't think there are any airlines doing dive-and-drive, we treat every approach, including RNAV, Localizer, VOR, etc., like a precision approach and go missed when we reached the DH/MDA. Therefore the location of the MAP isn't really relevant.

My C150 had an aftermarket quick-drain valve installed under the belly, I believe at the fuel shutoff valve. The aircraft came from the factory with a rubber plug at this location, which is slightly lower than the gascolator. Guess where I always found water... I don't believe Cessna put...

I think they thought POLVY was the FAF, but I'm not sure why they missed the actual FAF. They might have deleted it or ignored it, thinking it was an unnecessary stepdown.

You got that from this thread? I didn't see that.

No, it isn't. Yes, I can. A human hand-flying a visual approach to a road isn't going to fly perfectly straight along the approach course for 5 miles in rain, thunderstorms, and windshear.

They were perfectly aligned with the final approach course, so it wasn't a purely visual approach. Automation mismanagement and lack of SA.

Rain, turbulence, and winds are not an excuse for crossing the final approach fix 1,400 feet too low.

After missing the last one I promised myself I would donate next time, but since then had to go on leave from work (long story). But thank you to all the staff members for their volunteer work.