Instruments ILS Question

RingLaserGyroSandwich

RingLaserGyroSandwich

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 6, 2019
Messages
409
Location
Annapolis
Display Name
Display name:
RingLaserGyroSandwich
I'll put the prompt first, THEN my discussion so as to not bias the reader:

"If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."

In this situation, what is the pilot required to do, or alternately what is the pilot permitted to do? Go missed? Is permitted to continue to descend? None of the above? Something else? The question was technically multiple choice but I don't have all of the choices necessary and don't think it will be necessary to write them out to discuss what is intended by the prompt.

Once you have your answer, please read my introduction followed by my analysis:

I got an instruments course question wrong and disagree with my instructor that the question is valid. As a disclaimer, this is more so a wording of the question issue than a lack of knowledge issue. I discussed this with an ATP I know and we both agreed 100% on what the regulations were (and I trust his knowledge there), but just disagreed on what the answer to the question and/or the level of validity was. I'm totally okay with being wrong so long as I understand why I was wrong. I have a feeling pilots are going to feel differently about the question than non-pilots so I'll ask about this somewhere else as well. For perspective, I'm doing well in the course and this one question (which was already graded so you don't need to worry about providing unauthorized assistance) won't actually affect my grade in any meaningful way.... it's really just the principle. I think, at BEST, the question should be reworded to remove ambiguity or improve clarity. Anyway, here's my analysis of the question.

The question specifically excludes approach lights from other portions of the runway environment. I know, per 14CFR91.175 that you can continue descending from decision height if you see the approach lighting (with a caveat that is not relevant to DH). I also know, you can continue descending from decision height if you see the other portions of the runway environment identified in the regulation (e.g., threshold). If you can't see any of the items in the list, you must go missed.

The wording is a bit tricky though so I need to parse it. "If the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible..." Does this mean you can't see any of that stuff? Does this mean you can't see some of that stuff? When I was working on answering the question originally, I took that to mean "If A or B are not visible" in which cases you don't NECESSARILY need to go missed. In other words, if you write as your answer, "...the pilot is REQUIRED to go missed" then that seems wrong to me. The pilot might be able to see some of the environment, or might not, so the pilot MIGHT need to go missed.

Another pilot I spoke to pointed out that you should interpret "approach lights or any portion of the runway environment" as one item, rather than two items... but then why not say "approach lights AND any OTHER portion of the runway environment" in the question? To make the wording additionally confusing, it's not clear by "any portion of the runway environment" whether they mean the pilot can't see any of it, or the pilot can't see at least one piece of it. Do they mean can't see "anyone one portion" or "can't see the entirety of"?

At the time, I put one of the other answers besides "go missed" because it didn't meet the relevant requirement for going missed (can't see any of the items in the list). In hindsight, unless one of the available answer choices is "... potentially required to go missed depending on what he actually sees," there probably isn't a better answer than to go missed. The only disagreement that leaves behind between my pilot friend and me is whether the question is unclear and needs to be worded better. He thinks it's fine. I think the question is flawed unless you use a liberal interpretation of "choose the best answer even if it isn't actually 100% correct." The thing I fall back on is, what knowledge was the question trying to measure? I knew damn well you have to go missed if you can't see any of the items listed out in 14CFR91.175.

For those who made it this far without posting "I am not amused" and skipping out of the thread, thank you, and please share with me your thoughts on the question. Is the answer obviously 'required to go missed' and doesn't require any changes? Is 'going missed' the best answer but the wording is confusing? Do you consider 'go missed' to simply be a wrong answer to the question?
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
I'll put the prompt first, THEN my discussion so as to not bias the reader:

"If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."

In this situation, what is the pilot required to do, or alternately what is the pilot permitted to do? Go missed? Is permitted to continue to descend? None of the above? Something else? The question was technically multiple choice but I don't have all of the choices necessary and don't think it will be necessary to write them out to discuss what is intended by the prompt.

Once you have your answer, please read my introduction followed by my analysis:

I got an instruments course question wrong and disagree with my instructor that the question is valid. As a disclaimer, this is more so a wording of the question issue than a lack of knowledge issue. I discussed this with an ATP I know and we both agreed 100% on what the regulations were (and I trust his knowledge there), but just disagreed on what the answer to the question and/or the level of validity was. I'm totally okay with being wrong so long as I understand why I was wrong. I have a feeling pilots are going to feel differently about the question than non-pilots so I'll ask about this somewhere else as well. For perspective, I'm doing well in the course and this one question (which was already graded so you don't need to worry about providing unauthorized assistance) won't actually affect my grade in any meaningful way.... it's really just the principle. I think, at BEST, the question should be reworded to remove ambiguity or improve clarity. Anyway, here's my analysis of the question.

The question specifically excludes approach lights from other portions of the runway environment. I know, per 14CFR91.175 that you can continue descending from decision height if you see the approach lighting (with a caveat that is not relevant to DH). I also know, you can continue descending from decision height if you see the other portions of the runway environment identified in the regulation (e.g., threshold). If you can't see any of the items in the list, you must go missed.

The wording is a bit tricky though so I need to parse it. "If the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible..." Does this mean you can't see any of that stuff? Does this mean you can't see some of that stuff? When I was working on answering the question originally, I took that to mean "If A or B are not visible" in which cases you don't NECESSARILY need to go missed. In other words, if you write as your answer, "...the pilot is REQUIRED to go missed" then that seems wrong to me. The pilot might be able to see some of the environment, or might not, so the pilot MIGHT need to go missed.

Another pilot I spoke to pointed out that you should interpret "approach lights or any portion of the runway environment" as one item, rather than two items... but then why not say "approach lights AND any OTHER portion of the runway environment" in the question? To make the wording additionally confusing, it's not clear by "any portion of the runway environment" whether they mean the pilot can't see any of it, or the pilot can't see at least one piece of it. Do they mean can't see "anyone one portion" or "can't see the entirety of"?

At the time, I put one of the other answers besides "go missed" because it didn't meet the relevant requirement for going missed (can't see any of the items in the list). In hindsight, unless one of the available answer choices is "... potentially required to go missed depending on what he actually sees," there probably isn't a better answer than to go missed. The only disagreement that leaves behind between my pilot friend and me is whether the question is unclear and needs to be worded better. He thinks it's fine. I think the question is flawed unless you use a liberal interpretation of "choose the best answer even if it isn't actually 100% correct." The thing I fall back on is, what knowledge was the question trying to measure? I knew damn well you have to go missed if you can't see any of the items listed out in 14CFR91.175.

For those who made it this far without posting "I am not amused" and skipping out of the thread, thank you, and please share with me your thoughts on the question. Is the answer obviously 'required to go missed' and doesn't require any changes? Is 'going missed' the best answer but the wording is confusing? Do you consider 'go missed' to simply be a wrong answer to the question?
Click to expand...
Based on the way it is worded I would interpret it as NOT(A or B) which is equivalent to NOT A and NOT B. So runway environment not in sight and approach lights not in sight; therefore, go missed.
 
DogoPilot said:
Based on the way it is worded I would interpret it as NOT(A or B) which is equivalent to NOT A and NOT B. So runway environment not in sight and approach lights not in sight; therefore, go missed.
Click to expand...
I like how you are turning it into math (that's how my brain looked at it too but what is probably getting me into trouble lol) but I don't interpret it the same way. What's the difference between saying "The lights and the runway environment are not visible" and "the lights or the runway environment are not visible?" I interpret the former as NOT(A) and NOT (B) which is equivalent to NOT(A or B) as you said. I interpret the latter as NOT(A) OR NOT(B). If you disagree with me in the case of the latter, then that means the words "and" and "or" mean the same thing in that context, which seems off to me mathematically but might make sense from an informal conversational English point of view.
 
Well you have to do one or the other. Neither is not a possibility. If you continue the descent you have gone below mins without a visual reference of any kind... if you go missed then you would be complying with the charted procedure. Which one you pick is up to you.
 
Witmo said:
Don't read too much into the question. You're overthinking this.
Click to expand...
While this might be good advice in general, keep in mind I got the question wrong and that potentially has the ability to affect what grade you get or if you pass. As I said in my first post, I'm willing to be wrong so long as I understand why. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be wrong (from a matter of principle... this isn't really a flight safety issue).

Tarheelpilot said:
Well you have to do one or the other. Neither is not a possibility. If you continue the descent you have gone below mins without a visual reference of any kind... if you go missed then you would be complying with the charted procedure. Which one you pick is up to you.
Click to expand...
You are of the belief there is no visual reference whereas (if you see my recent exchange with DogoPilot) I am of the belief, based on the exact wording of the question, that at least one of the visual references are obscured, but not necessarily all of them. If the question makes it clear to me there are no visual references, then 100% I agree with you, go missed.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
While this might be good advice in general, keep in mind I got the question wrong and that potentially has the ability to affect what grade you get or if you pass. As I said in my first post, I'm willing to be wrong so long as I understand why. Otherwise, I'm not willing to be wrong (from a matter of principle... this isn't really a flight safety issue).

You are of the belief there is no visual reference whereas (if you see my recent exchange with DogoPilot) I am of the belief, based on the exact wording of the question, that at least one of the visual references are obscured, but not necessarily all of them. If the question makes it clear to me there are no visual references, then 100% I agree with you, go missed.
Click to expand...
That’s the way I read it but could be wrong.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
I like how you are turning it into math (that's how my brain looked at it too but what is probably getting me into trouble lol) but I don't interpret it the same way. What's the difference between saying "The lights and the runway environment are not visible" and "the lights or the runway environment are not visible?" I interpret the former as NOT(A) and NOT (B) which is equivalent to NOT(A or B) as you said. I interpret the latter as NOT(A) OR NOT(B). If you disagree with me in the case of the latter, then that means the words "and" and "or" mean the same thing in that context, which seems off to me mathematically but might make sense from an informal conversational English point of view.
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert in grammar and I see what you mean, but to me the intent of the question is clear.

Here's an interesting case that came down to the interpretation of "and" vs "or" in a severance plan document. The judge ruled in favor of the Plan essentially saying it's ok for "or" to mean "and" based on the context.

https://raymondpward.typepad.com/newlegalwriter/2007/02/when_or_means_a.html
 
DogoPilot said:
I'm not an expert in grammar and I see what you mean, but to me the intent of the question is clear.

Here's an interesting case that came down to the interpretation of "and" vs "or" in a severance plan document. The judge ruled in favor of the Plan essentially saying it's ok for "or" to mean "and" based on the context.

https://raymondpward.typepad.com/newlegalwriter/2007/02/when_or_means_a.html
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, I think I remember seeing that article a long time ago. Thank you for bringing it back to my attention! I do have a couple of contrary takeaways though:

First, the court at a minimum found the language to be ambiguous. Second, the court seems to have only ruled that way because the Plan gave the administrator discretionary authority. See: "Contract drafters, note this: The Eighth Circuit found the phrase “salary or bonus opportunity” ambiguous, that is, subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. In this case, Smith lost because the Plan gave the administrator discretionary authority to interpret ambiguous provisions. Without that grant of discretionary authority, the result might have been different."

In the case of an exam, the question writer should go out of their way to avoid ambiguity. Also, there are not competing interests for the exam. The instructor wants to assess my knowledge on instruments. I want to demonstrate my knowledge on instruments. It is in neither my best interest nor my instructor's best interest for me to get a question wrong because I didn't interpret "or" as "and." Essentially, the question is written in a way that is discriminatory against people who think like computer scientists or other disciplines involving mathematical logic. In addition, relying on context works better in a big contract than it does in a one sentence question!

Is the intent of the question clear? Clear is in the eye of the beholder. Instead of seeing if the student knows that you need to go missed if you don't see anything, the question could juts as easily be testing if a student knows that you don't have to go missed just because you can't see one of the items in the regulation. If the former, there are so many less ambiguous ways to word the question that it seems, to me, to be more likely that the question is trying to play some game involving the latter.

As I mentioned originally, with a lot of hindsight it's possible to conclude that the question was pointing you towards going missed because in the alternate case there is no answer that is quite as good. However, whenever a question is ambiguous I try to default to my interpretation of what it actually says instead of what I think it was meant to say, because if it turns out my original interpretation was correct I have no leg to stand on if I get it wrong due to picking what I thought the instructor "wanted to hear."

In conclusion, I think they should write the darn question more clearly because not everybody is willing to feel their way through logical words like and, or, and not.
 
The mins for an ILS are typically 200 and 1/2. On a 3 degree glideslope, 200 feet would be approx. 2/3 mile from the runway. The approach lights a generally 3000 feet long or about 1/2 mile. If the weather is at mins, the only thing you would ever be able to see is the approach lights. If you can not see them, you would not see anything else. Go missed.
 
Floyd, I agree. The issue becomes, what if you see the approach lights but don't see anything else? You can continue to descend (with a caveat). Does the question above say that you can't see the approach lights? I've argued no it does not... it says you can't see something, whether it be the approach lights or something else from that list in the regulations, or perhaps all of them. Realistically, some things are going to be easier to see than other things, but I think that's beyond the scope of the question and should not need to be considered to answer it.
 
Regarding semantics, you are correct, I think they mean AND, not OR. I, too, am given to overthinking things.
 
Welcome to the club of people that take these multiple choice tests and do poorly despite knowing all of the information. You will make a fine pilot. Most of flying has little to do with picking the right answer and more to do with understanding what is going on and responding appropriately. Make sure you understand the information, score what you need to pass the test.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
Now that you mention it, I think I remember seeing that article a long time ago. Thank you for bringing it back to my attention! I do have a couple of contrary takeaways though:

First, the court at a minimum found the language to be ambiguous. Second, the court seems to have only ruled that way because the Plan gave the administrator discretionary authority. See: "Contract drafters, note this: The Eighth Circuit found the phrase “salary or bonus opportunity” ambiguous, that is, subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. In this case, Smith lost because the Plan gave the administrator discretionary authority to interpret ambiguous provisions. Without that grant of discretionary authority, the result might have been different."

In the case of an exam, the question writer should go out of their way to avoid ambiguity. Also, there are not competing interests for the exam. The instructor wants to assess my knowledge on instruments. I want to demonstrate my knowledge on instruments. It is in neither my best interest nor my instructor's best interest for me to get a question wrong because I didn't interpret "or" as "and." Essentially, the question is written in a way that is discriminatory against people who think like computer scientists or other disciplines involving mathematical logic. In addition, relying on context works better in a big contract than it does in a one sentence question!

Is the intent of the question clear? Clear is in the eye of the beholder. Instead of seeing if the student knows that you need to go missed if you don't see anything, the question could juts as easily be testing if a student knows that you don't have to go missed just because you can't see one of the items in the regulation. If the former, there are so many less ambiguous ways to word the question that it seems, to me, to be more likely that the question is trying to play some game involving the latter.

As I mentioned originally, with a lot of hindsight it's possible to conclude that the question was pointing you towards going missed because in the alternate case there is no answer that is quite as good. However, whenever a question is ambiguous I try to default to my interpretation of what it actually says instead of what I think it was meant to say, because if it turns out my original interpretation was correct I have no leg to stand on if I get it wrong due to picking what I thought the instructor "wanted to hear."

In conclusion, I think they should write the darn question more clearly because not everybody is willing to feel their way through logical words like and, or, and not.
Click to expand...
Since you can only descend below minimums if the approach lights or the runway environment is in sight per the regs, the intent of the question is clear to me to mean if neither of those are in sight, then you go missed. If you used "and" in the question, it would seem to me that you'd have to go missed if you don't have both the runway environment and approach lights in sight.
 
You wrote
If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH.
Sounds to me like you cannot see the approach light or anything else.
You said "I've argued no it does not... it says you can't see something". I would say it says you can't see anything.
On any FAA or any other test always go with the most correct answer.
Did you pass the test?
 
DogoPilot said:
Since you can only descend below minimums if the approach lights or the runway environment is in sight per the regs, the intent of the question is clear to me to mean if neither of those are in sight, then you go missed. If you used "and" in the question, it would seem to me that you'd have to go missed if you don't have both the runway environment and approach lights in sight.
Click to expand...

The negative changes the semantics; you need the AND to communicate what I believe they wanted to communicate. Which is that you need to see either to descent.
 
Floyd said:
You wrote
If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH.
Sounds to me like you cannot see the approach light or anything else.
You said "I've argued no it does not... it says you can't see something". I would say it says you can't see anything.
On any FAA or any other test always go with the most correct answer.
Did you pass the test?
Click to expand...
Yes, I passed the test. Assuming I don't perform poorly for the final Stage of the course or the final exam I will earn the maximum possible letter grade. This is really just a matter of principle and improving the course for the future.''

I've more or less laid out my reasoning for why I say it didn't say you can't see anything. A couple of others have argued that the context makes it clear that's what they meant, but when you analyze the sentence like a computer, it says you can't see approach lights, or you can't see the rest of the items, or you can't see both.

drjcustis said:
Welcome to the club of people that take these multiple choice tests and do poorly despite knowing all of the information. You will make a fine pilot. Most of flying has little to do with picking the right answer and more to do with understanding what is going on and responding appropriately. Make sure you understand the information, score what you need to pass the test.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I really appreciate this. Although, judging from my user icon, you might be wrong about my flying ability.
 
alfadog said:
The negative changes the semantics; you need the AND to communicate what I believe they wanted to communicate. Which is that you need to see either to descent.
Click to expand...
I don't know. It seems to me that if the question was written as "If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights and any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..." then it would imply you'd have to see both in order to descend below minimums if the answer to the reworded question was to "go missed". Removing the "any portion of" and reading it out loud helps support my argument (in my head).
 
I agree with removing 'any portion of' to simply our analysis of the different wording options. The 'any portion of' actually confounds the issue to some extent.

If the question is essentially "If the approach lights and the runway environment are not visible..." then the question makes sense to me and is unambiguously "then go missed."

edit: hm, I guess the issue is, will someone take that to mean, "it's not the case that I can see both the approach lights and the runway environment."

Best to just reword the question entirely.
 
Last edited:
“The wording is a bit tricky though so I need to parse it. "If the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible..." Does this mean you can't see any of that stuff?”

Yes, It means you can see neither. Decision is made for you.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
I agree with removing 'any portion of' to simply our analysis of the different wording options. The 'any portion of' actually confounds the issue to some extent.

If the question is essentially "If the approach lights and the runway environment are not visible..." then the question makes sense to me and is unambiguously "then go missed."
Click to expand...
If I were a computer, I would read that as...if both conditions aren't met, then I have to go missed (i.e. if the approach lights are in sight but not the runway, then go missed and vice versa), which would not be correct.
 
DogoPilot said:
If I were a computer, I would read that as...if both conditions aren't met, then I have to go missed (i.e. if the approach lights are in sight but not the runway, then go missed and vice versa), which would not be correct.
Click to expand...
A is approach lights not visible
B is runway environment not visible
M is need to go missed (not M is do not need to go missed)

If (A AND B) --> M does not imply If (A AND NOT B) --> M.

I think that is how a computer sees it. The bigger issue is the one I edited in in my previous post.
 
The grammar of the question makes it ambiguous. I believe the question is meant to state that "neither the approach lights nor any part of the runway is in sight".

Let's reword the question and pretend there's no mention of approach lights: "..if any portion of the runway environment is not visible..." would mean "if all portions of the runway environment are not visible". I don't believe that's the intented meaning because the question would not be relevant, in other words it wouldn't have a useful or meaningful answer.

The "or" combined with "any" combined with "not" makes it ambiguous.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
A is approach lights not visible
B is runway environment not visible
M is need to go missed (not M is do not need to go missed)

If (A AND B) --> M does not imply If (A AND NOT B) --> M.

I think that is how a computer sees it. The bigger issue is the one I edited in in my previous post.
Click to expand...
I would switch it to
A is approach lights visible
B is runway environment visible
M is go missed

I would read the original question as If NOT (A or B) then M. The "reworded" version would be If NOT (A and B) then M, which would mean you'd have to see both to not go missed.

My logic could be flawed but I think it is sound and it's my reasoning for why I think the original question and answer are clear to me.
 
It's pretty clear to me, you can't see the approach lights or the runway environment, you are required to go missed. That said, the wording on many of these questions suck. This one isn't great.

I believe they are rewriting all these questions to make them more reflective of real life scenarios versus rote memorization. Unfortunately I'm willing to bet they will continue to try to be cute with the wording.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
I like how you are turning it into math (that's how my brain looked at it too...
Click to expand...
Sheesh, I hate how you two turn it into, math. It's English! Runway environment has more than one portion, right? If you don't have any portion in sight, EXECUTE the missed approach (as in "kill it", please don't say "go missed"—it sounds so sissyish :p).
 
PaulS said:
It's pretty clear to me, you can't see the approach lights or the runway environment, you are required to go missed. That said, the wording on many of these questions suck. This one isn't great.

I believe they are rewriting all these questions to make them more reflective of real life scenarios versus rote memorization. Unfortunately I'm willing to bet they will continue to try to be cute with the wording.
Click to expand...

The intent is clear to you, and to me, but it's poorly worded. One person will very clearly see a vase in the image below, while another one will very clearly see two faces.

rubin-vase-300x284.jpeg

see-face-vase-image


The sentence should really be "neither...nor any...not visible".

dtuuri said:
Sheesh, I hate how you two turn it into, math. It's English! Runway environment has more than one portion, right? If you don't have any portion in sight, EXECUTE the missed approach (as in "kill it", please don't say "go missed"—it sounds so sissyish :p).
Click to expand...

But the sentence is "any portion of the runway environment [is] not visible". If I see 8 of the 9 items in the list, one portion is not visible.
 
I agree with @dmspilot, neither/nor is their intent and would have erased the ambiguity. That being said, your instructor should be guiding you on test taking strategy as well. This isn't a philosophy course, pick the most reasonable answer. I've done the same thing as you on many FAA questions, but this one seems pretty obvious to me.
 
To me the question is very clear. If you can't see the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment, go missed. The way the question should read is "If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights NOR any portion of the runway environment are visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
 
grammarteachersofamerica.com is the website you're looking for to address this question.
 
Ravioli said:
Am I mistaken, or are the approach lights A PORTION OF the runway environment?

No need for Ands, Ors, or Nors.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. If someone has OCD, they could have changed the question to "...If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any other portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
 
lancie00 said:
To me the question is very clear. If you can't see the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment, go missed. The way the question should read is "If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights NOR any portion of the runway environment are visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
Click to expand...
I would write it as "If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, NEITHER the approach lights nor any portion of the runway environment are visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
 
dtuuri said:
Yes they are. If someone has OCD, they could have changed the question to "...If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any other portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
Click to expand...

More proper: "...if during an ILS approach in IFR conditions the runway environment is not visible upon arrival at the DH..."

Why call out one of the many visible features of the runway environment?
 
Pretty sure the tests are not written by people who have flying experience.
 
EdFred said:
Pretty sure the tests are not written by people who have flying experience.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But I used to have a coffee cup that, among other sayings, said "Make it possible for programmers to write in English and you will discover that programmers cannot write in English." It applies to lots of otherwise entirely capable technical folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top