JetBlue Pilot Assists Cirrus Pilot on an ILS

[Palmpilot]

If you find it easier to navigate the AIM by paragraph instead of page number it's 1-2-3 c.

Even easier is to use paragraph designators and page numbers together. I find that the lack of indentation of the various paragraphs often makes it hard to find a specified one. For example, once you find section 1-2-3, you have to carefully scan past paragraphs labeled a, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, b, 1, and 2 to get to paragraph c. To find 5-4-5b, from 5-4-5 you have to scan past paragraphs labeled a, 1, 2, 3, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), 4, 5, 6, 7, (a), (b), and (c) to get to paragraph b, two pages later.

 

[Palmpilot]

More on that in AIM 5-4-5 b., note 2.

Which is on page 5-4-7.

 

[luvflyin]

Even easier is to use paragraph designators and page numbers together. I find that the lack of indentation of the various paragraphs often makes it hard to find a specified one. For example, once you find section 1-2-3, you have to carefully scan past paragraphs labeled a, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, b, 1, and 2 to get to paragraph c. To find 5-4-5b, from 5-4-5 you have to scan past paragraphs labeled a, 1, 2, 3, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), 4, 5, 6, 7, (a), (b), and (c) to get to paragraph b, two pages later.

Yeah. The source I usually go to read the AIM makes it easier to use paragraph numbers. But yeah, referencing both them and page numbers is a good idea. The sources that don't 'indent' the indents can be maddening

 

[Palmpilot]

At least they put out that bulletin you mentioned in post #110 that pretty much says 'we know the letter of the law says use the localizer but go ahead and use LNAV anyway.' I'm wondering how wide the localizer is out there at LYCOM. It's 37 miles out from the antennae which is at the far end of a 2 mile long runway. It's supposed to be 700 feet wide at the runway threshold. I don't know how to do the trigonometry.

I don't think it's so much "the letter of the law" as it is conflicting guidance between the AIM and that bulletin.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah. The source I usually go to read the AIM makes it easier to use paragraph numbers. But yeah, referencing both them and page numbers is a good idea. The sources that don't 'indent' the indents can be maddening

Do you have a link? The only one I've found is to the FAA's pdf edition.

 

[luvflyin]

Do you have a link? The only one I've found is to the FAA's pdf edition.

I usually go to 'Documents' in ForeFlight. You can get the page numbers by inhibiting some stuff in the margins. It's easy enough to do by just 'tapping' somewhere on the page. I just noticed that ForeFliight has the May 2016 version. I'm gonna send them an email about that.

 

[luvflyin]

I don't think it's so much "the letter of the law" as it is conflicting guidance between the AIM and that bulletin.

Yeah. The letter of the law in the AIM is use the localizer. The bulletin, I haven't read it but I trust @aterpster 's say on it, says use LNAV anyway. So yeah, they contradict each other. The point I was addressing was the FAA is 'absurd' on this. I was just pointing out that they recognize the 'intent' of the law and using LNAV is OK. I think it was a good way to handle it. The bulletin is to the Airlines and not the general public and the airlines are almost the sole users of LAX. Trying to change the rules in the AIM would be cumbersome. 'Use the localizer except when the angle of the dangle between the this Fix and that Fix is and they are between this many miles and that many miles and blah blah blah......'

 

[Palmpilot]

I usually go to 'Documents' in ForeFlight. You can get the page numbers by inhibiting some stuff in the margins. It's easy enough to do by just 'tapping' somewhere on the page. I just noticed that ForeFliight has the May 2016 version. I'm gonna send them an email about that.

The AIM that Foreflight has on my iPad says December 10, 2015 on it, but it has changes 1, 2, and 3 included, which brings it up to April 27, 2017. There's a bunch of updates waiting for download, so I'll check it again after applying those.

The layout looks the same as the pdf version at my previous link, by the way.

 

[luvflyin]

The AIM that Foreflight has on my iPad says December 10, 2015 on it, but it has changes 1, 2, and 3 included, which brings it up to April 27, 2017. There's a bunch of updates waiting for download, so I'll check it again after applying those.

The layout looks the same as the pdf version at my previous link, by the way.

On second look, the Dec 2015, uptodate April 2017 is what I have also. The new Chart users Guide dated Oct 2017 is there, but not the Oct 2017 AIM. I sent them the email.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah. The letter of the law in the AIM is use the localizer. The bulletin, I haven't read it but I trust @aterpster 's say on it, says use LNAV anyway. So yeah, they contradict each other. The point I was addressing was the FAA is 'absurd' on this. I was just pointing out that they recognize the 'intent' of the law and using LNAV is OK. I think it was a good way to handle it. The bulletin is to the Airlines and not the general public and the airlines are almost the sole users of LAX. Trying to change the rules in the AIM would be cumbersome. 'Use the localizer except when the angle of the dangle between the this Fix and that Fix is and they are between this many miles and that many miles and blah blah blah......'

The AIM is not "the letter of the law" anymore than the bulletin is. Both are guidance, not law, because neither has gone through the NPRM process that is required to adopt a regulation.

By the way, there are plenty of ILS approaches that have stepdowns on the localizer prior to the glideslope intercept point and serve runways that have significant non-airline traffic. Examples include OAK, ACV, MHR, NUQ, MFR, HIO, SBA, OXR, and RTS.

 

[luvflyin]

The AIM is not "the letter of the law" anymore than the bulletin is. Both are guidance, not law, because neither has gone through the NPRM process that is required to adopt a regulation.

By the way, there are plenty of ILS approaches that have stepdowns on the localizer prior to the glideslope intercept point and serve runways that have significant non-airline traffic. Examples include OAK, ACV, MHR, NUQ, MFR, HIO, SBA, OXR, and RTS.

Yeah. Law was not the right word. That bulletin for LAX was most likely about vertical navigation anyway, but it does seem it said LNAV which I guess takes you off the hook for having to use the localizer before the PFAF.

 

[denverpilot]

When I fly a Skycatcher, my palm is in contact with the joystick!

Pilots love to play with their sticks.

 

[aterpster]

The AIM is not "the letter of the law" anymore than the bulletin is. Both are guidance, not law, because neither has gone through the NPRM process that is required...

As a matter of law, that is correct. Having said that, parts of the AIM are directive and parts are informational or advisory. Successful enforcement actions have been made for not reporting the FAF, for example, when required. They go after the pilot for careless and reckless.

 

[Palmpilot]

As a matter of law, that is correct. Having said that, parts of the AIM are directive and parts are informational or advisory. Successful enforcement actions have been made for not reporting the FAF, for example, when required. They go after the pilot for careless and reckless.

When the FAA publishes a directive in one place that says "do this," and in another that says "do the opposite," I would HOPE that they would have a hard time making a violation stick if the pilot obeys the "wrong" one. That having been said, my understanding is that the stepdown altitudes are regulatory via Part 97, which if I remember rightly is what got pilots in trouble at LAX.

As for the cases involving not reporting at the FAF, did ATC direct the pilots to report there? If so, that would be covered by 91.123(b).

 

[aterpster]

When the FAA publishes a directive in one place that says "do this," and in another that says "do the opposite," I would HOPE that they would have a hard time making a violation stick if the pilot obeys the "wrong" one. That having been said, my understanding is that the stepdown altitudes are regulatory via Part 97, which if I remember rightly is what got pilots in trouble at LAX.

The step-down altitudes and fixes are all Part 97. When these violations occurred most pilots were following the GS way out in the KONT area. On very hot days it got them into airspace controlled by SCT's Empire sector and resulted in a loss of vertical separation with aircraft that were 1,000 feet lower had the stepdown fixes been observed. Baro VNAV moves with temperature, unlike the ILS GS, so it solves the problem.

As to conflicting directives, such a enforcement action would likely fail with good representation.

As for the cases involving not reporting at the FAF, did ATC direct the pilots to report there? If so, that would be covered by 91.123(b).

Could have been the case. I do know that careless and reckless has been used more than once to enforce directive instructions in the AIM. Reporting the FAF is required without an ATC request when in non-radar.

 

[aterpster]

Chewing on this some more, I recall on the early 767 when in the map mode the ADI had a small place at the bottom that showed the LOC and a GS indicator to the left (I believe). That was an early semi-glass airliner with old pre-GPS RNAV. I suspect most of the later generation airline airplanes always display the raw localizer in some secondary manner when tuned in but using LNAV/Baro VNAV. The Garmin G-5000 shows a ghost LOC and GS. And, probably other Garmin equipment does too. So, in all likelihood, these folks trucking inbound on one of the four LAX ILS IAPs from the east are compliant with the AIM provision at issue.

 

[aterpster]

This a screen capture of the G-5000 on the KLAX ILS 25R flying the parallel RNAV initial approach segment CLPUR-SNNAK. The airplane is in the flyby turn approaching SNNAK to capture the SNAKK-FALLT leg. Although in LNAV mode, note the white localizer. That is localizer raw data. So, this satisfies the AIM requirement to have LOC raw data when in LNAV. In this case it would apply at intercept at FALLT because the navigator wouldn't switch from LNAV to LOC until passing SHELL.