IPC requirements

[flyingcheesehead]

Ummm....

Did you actually read what I wrote?

I didn't say I didn't "believe in the law of primacy."

I didn't say you said it... But you sure don't seem to believe in its strength (my impression from this thread and others). Yes, it can be overcome... But frankly, the way many pilots train (get the rating, never call a CFI again until the BFR, never visit pilot web boards, never read books, never attend seminars, etc.) we should be taking care to avoid needing to overcome the law of primacy because in most cases, while it's possible, it just isn't going to happen.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not cheating at all.....

I meant that I still haven't been able to find an ILS (not ILS/DME) that didn't require timing... And this one was way too easy to find 'cuz I fly it all the time.

Not cheating since all it really shows is that timing won't be required for an ILS under exactly the same conditions that timing is not required for any other IAP - when there is some other way to identify the MAP.

In this approach, I don't think it's the DME that removes the need to time – it's the simpler fact that the MAP is identified by a VOR.

It is? It looks to me like the MAP for the LOC portion would be at 0.2 DME. Or is that what you meant?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I meant that I still haven't been able to find an ILS (not ILS/DME) that didn't require timing... And this one was way too easy to find 'cuz I fly it all the time.



It is? It looks to me like the MAP for the LOC portion would be at 0.2 DME. Or is that what you meant?

It's not what I meant, but it's what I should have meant.

 

[bbchien]

Do you make it a point to fly approaches in icing ?

Well I could return the insult to you, too, sir, whomever you are.

I would say that if you have to miss an approach you have to miss an approach.

Yes, but if you are doing that in icing, part 91 your judgement is....poor.

It could be a safer alternative to miss than to continue in some cases. If a required component of an approach fails the safest course of action is usually a missed. This is the way it is done at the airlines, and with good reason IMHO.
FB

Most of the posters are not flying FIKI. When I flew company I flew whatever the book said. The ops manual is the bible. That's because someone has thought it through. And yes, if you read the whole string, there are some FIKI ships (mostly bizjets between) that don't have GPSs.

I was responding to the poster who called someone a "baboon". He subsequently thought his position out more clearly. He doesn't fly in winter IMC much.

 

[dmccormack]

I was responding to the poster who called someone a "baboon". He subsequently thought his position out more clearly. He doesn't fly in winter IMC much.

No one in this thread called anyone else a "baboon."

I made the baboon reference in describing how humans and primates learn and think differently, period.

 

[poadeleted20]

And for you double I types it is probably OK to teach it that way,

It's more than "OK" -- it's essential if you want your trainee to be sure of passing the IR practical test.

 

[nosehair]

And for you double I types it is probably OK to teach it that way, but I would point out to my students that it is frowned upon by profesional crews and verboten at the airlines.

Here's a news flash - teaching to fly an airplane is always * repeat * always how to fly a light airplane. An airplane with minimum equipment.

An airplane and environment that teaches the aspiring pilot how to get around in a wide variety of situations with minimum help and equipment.

That's how it has always been and hopefully always will be.

AFTER you get hired by an airline, you should be able to adjust to each company's particular variations on these procedures.

Sure, there are many initial basic habits that you don't need in high-dollar multi-crew aircraft and flight profiles, and you should be able to blend into the various procedures in different situations, but that is not initial flight training, and initial flight training is not training to an airline.

When the FAA certifies you as a pilot, it is in a light single-pilot airplane without an auto-pilot or GPS or other helpful bells and whistles. He is certifying you to fly any ASEL certified by the FAA - including the 'old' ones.

If you understood 'Primacy', you would understand that it is detrimental to teach a primary student to act as if he is an airline captain and fly like the airlines do. It emplants habits which are not good for single-pilot minimum equipment airplanes.

 

[nosehair]

how do I know it it is the ILS transmitter that went goofy or my receiver. An since I had the LOC needle pegged I wouldln't want to test it by swinging off course.

You can tell the difference between a 'pegged' needle and and an 'off' needle. A live needle is never dead still. Well, sometimes in absolutely dead calm conditions it may seem that way. In those rare occasions, it is ok to squeak off heading a hair to see the needle move.

But 9 times out of 10, you will have an active loc and gs needle.

Also, you have a flag for each needle. The gs flag comes on, you continue to MDA for the loc approach, level off, fly out the time, what's dangerous or unsettleing about that? Especially when you train to that standard.

I do however, disagree that for practical purposes the argument is moot 300' is 300' If I slam in to a hill 20' below the top its no worse than if I slam into it 600' from the top .Rock is rock.

The moot point I meant was when you are on gs in an established stabilized descent on gs, and you are going below MDA and the gs quits, you would be very close to DH, and I have not seen many ILS's where the DH is more than 2-300 feet below MDA, and if you are on gs at 400 AGL, you are not going to be suddenly dropping immediately to 200 agl after the gs quits, so a normal quick climb back to MDA and fly out time which would normally be about the same time you get back to MDA....so that is why I say it is 'moot'.

 

[bbchien]

If I were still an active II i would also teach CANPA. It is alot easier, safer, and there is no need to time anything. Just my 2 cents. Frank

An Okay 2c. But if you teach mostly midlife professional guys, they're not going to ever encounter CANPA on their checkride. They of course learn it.

Many moons ago we did an ILS into Adak with the sperry Inav. We missed of course, but there are many tools available and you adapt and master what you've got....

The next trip we had electrical troubles. The INAV of course relies on constant power. I got cussed out by my 3rd-O 'cuase I wasn't holding it steady enough for him to get a good horizon....