Search results

Of course, you can support that assertion with some documentation can’t you? The original question was how to interpret this in view of the literal language. Not to create some issue where there isn’t one. But the wording is precise and doesn’t say what we all say it says. So there is a...

It is precisely because I can read English and I have some experience in writing FAA procedures that I even mention the issue.

Here is another issue that always concerns me having been through one of the following events with homeowner insurance. you go out and fly IFR using a wrong interpretation, whatever it is, even with wonderful intentions. And you kill yourself in the airplane or someone else. Will your...

Here is an extreme example of an interpretation like we’re considering. Suppose I want to fly on the 29th but I have not flown in the last 10 months. So I go out today on the 24th and fly all of the approaches and requirements. If you take the literal interpretation I won’t be current five...

(i) Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person must have performed and logged at least the following instrument currency tasks, iterations, and flight time, and the instrument currency must have been performed in actual weather conditions or under simulated...

My guess is that he had an opposite direction downwind being vectored to the approach and was counting on a turn about 1/2 to a mile off the departure end for separation. When you turned what he considered too soon you might have turned into the downwind instead of passing behind him. That...

The phraseology should be “Cessna two three bravo, change to my frequency 119.xx” Unless instructed there is no requirement to report up on that new frequency, although most do with something like “Cessna two three bravo with you on 119.xx” Tex

Well, first let me apologize for what I said to you. I was harsh. Second I have spent all day researching this as I try to prepare a lesson plan on this subject. I found ac 120-91 which made it finally click about what you were trying to explain. I was hearing one thing and you were saying...

FSDO POI has the authority. Like a MLB umpire. The POi for your operation is your authority. Who are you kidding. Now you’re showing your ignorance. I’ve worked closely with FSDO for 30 of my 37 year in the business

We’re making progress? So please explain the takeoff minimum process. Remember no DP. Based on F53 238 to 900. Which way can I turn at 400 and which direction is it I have to wait to 900 to turn to based on the different obstacles? I believe what you are doing is making up your own DPs...

I haven’t refuted yet because I’m having trouble it seems to get a simple straight answer to a few questions. I’ll try again. If I can turn safely at 400 as you state then what is “ clinb to 512 to 1100” for? If I can turn at 400 why do I care anymore about climbing at a higher cg. I know why...

I have described it several times as being able to turn safely clear of the obstacles that the increased cg and the “to xxxx” altitude is intended to protect you from. I have also stated that of course a pilot is free to rationalize or calculate a turn sooner based on obstacle data. Please...

I did and they didn’t give what I considered a satisfactory answer. I asked “what does 400 to 1100 mean?” Then I asked “then what? What happens at 1100?” Just like I asked here. I asked it we can return to 200? The answer was yes. I asked if it was then safe to run on course...any...

I’m sure it is me. I am not asking the right question or wording it correctly or something but I still am missing something. I’ll just have to try to figure out a way to describe it correctly to the students. Thanks

A pilot is free to rationalize any decision regarding what or how he will pay attention to climb out obstacle clearances. If you want to turn at 400 then fine. You can also read the info and decide to turn at 300 on a heading you think will be safe. The pilot decides. But the 900 (in this...

I think we’re getting to the point that I’m having trouble with. If 900 represents the altitude where the increased cg ends, and the purpose of the increased cg is to clear an obstacle(s) then 900 represents the altitude. where the obstacle requiring a higher cg has been cleared and all...

As I said before every non stand climb gradient has a “to xxxx” with it. Simple question....what is that altitude for? What does it represent? What does it mean to the departing pilot? Second question... does it have anything to do with when I may turn on course and be sure that I have...

So we have some answers that say that even with a non standard TO minimum which requires a 238 climb to 900 that a pilot can turn on course at 400. And one that says even once we get to 900 we can’t turn on course. Who believes that with a minimum of 238 to 900 that you can turn on course...

Let’s see if we can reduce this down. Take Mt Vernon, F53. It has Ry 13/31. Assuming a ceiling of 100 and 1 mile viz the non standard TO minimum is 238 to 900. Please answer the following questions without any explaining. We’ll discuss it later. 1. After departure off 13 as I am climbing...

Actually, that is precisely what I am NOT doing. Every cg solution includes two things...1) a climb gradient and 2) an "to xxxx" altitude. We have been shown in the AIM that in the case of 400 (notice that it gives no other examples, which is part of my original problem) you may begin your...