Search results

We’re on the same side of this event! Sorry if I was less than clear.

This is my understanding, too. Can anyone that is regularly impacted by one of these tests comment on actual loss of nav events in flight?

Woke or sleep, she did a good job. And this entire thread would have ended with that if she wasn't an attractive female. Get it together, boys.

Seems the LOM for KILG (Newcastle Delaware) seems in operation. Got a marker light overflying it yesterday.

I actually believe the OP was referring to the lack of straight-in minima. And the reason for that (I think!) is the 6 degree descent required from FAF to MAP. It would take a TERPS nerd to clarify this :D

No sorry, let me clarify: Straight in approach = Flying an an approach without a procedure turn Straight in minimums = Using the runway specific minimums on an approach. These are the lines of minima that begin S-ILS 6 or some such. The terms are so similar, its easy to get them confused (as...

Approaches aren't categorized as "Straight in". Only how you fly them. If you fly without a PT (or one is not provided), its a Straight-in approach.

The "S" in front of the runway minimums stands for "Straight in".

That's no problem. You don't have to "circle" to use circling minimums. If the runway is in front of you and you can make a normal landing, you are good to go.

Nope. Grum.Man is spot on. Straight in approach is different than straight in landing (I got this wrong too). https://www.klaviation.com/2012/10/27/straight-in-approach-vs-straight-in-landing/

I've seen lots of such approaches, but they are all published and state their restrictions. I wonder if this approach was decommissioned?

Ok, I was talking about Loc/DME E. Back to your approach, why can't I find it published anywhere? :)

Yeah, your example is very much an example of straight in. But we were specifically talking about the Loc/DME E. I dont see that published anywhere though! Where did you get this from (I see its a Jepp chart, is it only published there?)

I believe that the definition of a straight in approach is the existence of runway minimums.

IAS climb is what we all do normally, and its less work, so it makes sense to want that. And pitch trim is just a workload saver. Neither are deal breakers for me, and are not enough to overcome the price savings on the TT vs GFC500.

I'd be more inclined to want a backup gps than a backup nav :) 2 coms is of course, necessary.

Not sure what you mean. Drivers clock in and out where they want, when they want. Uber has extremely little actual control, contrasting that to pretty much any full time employer. I agree with you that they take too much revenue from the drivers, but that's a business decision and not a legal...

Beech owners can afford a GFC500 :D

Thanks for the feedback, all.

dunno what yer talking about.. stupid internet fourum rulez cant fense me in!!@!11