Search results

I flew this approach a few weeks ago too. Yeah, QUALE is 3.4 from LRP and I agree - it should use the new format with the equipment required sub-box like newer FAA charts.

Revision is I believe a date the last time the IAP was changed for any reason. Amendment Numbers are individual procedural changes to the IAP and have an effective date of when it actually got into the AIRAC cycle. It's in the CUG.

Hello, I'm late to this thread but there are some excellent workshops that talk about doing exactly this (profiling your numbers) in the sim over at Pilot Workshops. I HIGHLY recommend them since I make zillions of dollars everytime you watch one (i.e. I am not affiliated in any way outside of...

Yeah, totally agree. Though again, what FAR actually doesn't allow plane B to estimate the radial that perhaps intersects it (not a Victor) and use that to track inbound? I mean it's not like ATC is really going to say, "Hey Mark, you're 2 degrees off, say intentions." LOL. However...

I think you mean, "You can, but you risk a potential pilot deviation en-route due to the inherit inaccuracies using a dual VOR to effectively triangulate a GPS waypoint." Right? I mean I don't know of any FAR that precludes identifying a GPS waypoint using ground-based NAVIADs. Provided you have...

Choices: A. Do what your aircraft and engine manufactures recommend in the official FAA-approved handbook for your aircraft written 40 years ago by techs who had no clue what was going on in their engines nor understood the long term effects of what they were recommending. B. Do a little...

I’ve seen the IFR Accelerator course and it is very good.

So in the end, the 300 degree heading is a “suggestion”? I assume the text is controlling and the “via” is really a suggestion here more than a mandate. The goal is to intercept the radial. Follow-up question: Is there any place in the FAR/AIM that covers this kind of scenario?

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of GPS units screw up the missed as well in this scenario. I don’t have first hand knowledge but a few pilots who do say that units from both Garmin and Avidyne will get it wrong.

Yes. I should be explicitly stated that though as well to avoid any confusion. The point here though is that you can be passed the missed and still meet vertical requirements before the turn to intercept.

Yes! This actually was a topic of discussion over at PilotEdge @coma24 since it is a key segment of the last I-rating flight they offer. Also, and to your point, for the next guy, you’re welcome!

@midlifeflyer That is a good example. So it seems the heading recommendation is advisory depending on aircraft and thus rate of climb.

Correct. I am quite aware you can't turn before the MAP. But the fact is you can reach the MAP and still climb to 3.5k before the VOR and the 300 degree heading is now no good for intercept Also, the 200ft/nm is a *minimum climb gradient* not a maximum.

That was my understanding as well.

Riddle me this: KVCV ILS or LOC 17: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2110/00794IL17.PDF You go missed. You fly to 3500. You are before the VOR. Can you now turn to intercept R-269 off of VICTORVILLE or do you have to fly past the VOR first AND then turn to 300 degrees? Because if you turn...

An Arc is very rare unless one exists at your home AP. I wouldn’t count on it. Timed turns is also hit-or-miss from talking to DPEs. I know one DPE that makes you fly four or five approaches (one coupled and/or “fast”) - I think that is very unfair.

@WDD I’m in the same boat. Sorta. Shopped for a DPE, found one. Now waiting on a date. Now trying to understand what the ride will be like.

Yeah, I got it before all that. But it is a great review sheet for sure! Note: I have the King’s IFR Checkride video. It is borderline useless because Martha uses the AP throughout the whole thing. She barely actually flies. I mean it.

DISCLAIMER: I’m completely signed off and ready to go. DPE on the other hand is still working out a date after a week. Sigh. Here are a few: PilotEdge IFR Workshop Playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJmC-QIPKz391ZCdA9rzJb1G2yrdPF63F

I think what he really means is once you hit DA and have the run-way environment insight, you go visual. In fact, *every* successful approach ends that way since an IAP puts you in a position to land visually (for now assume success means not going missed). What’s interesting is that no matter...