Our favorite pilot demonstrates another unusual attitude

[Kritchlow]

You cannot call him a “copilot”. There is really no SOP’s there differentiating duties. just because you have someone riding along operating the radios does not constitute a copilot… at least by airline standards.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You cannot call him a “copilot”. There is really no SOP’s there differentiating duties. just because you have someone riding along operating the radios does not constitute a copilot… at least by airline standards.

I'm not sure why people are referring to Robert as a copilot. He's an instrument rated passenger whom Jerry is (heaven help us) "mentoring."

 

[2-Bit Speed]

You cannot call him a “copilot”. There is really no SOP’s there differentiating duties. just because you have someone riding along operating the radios does not constitute a copilot… at least by airline standards.

I never actually called Robert (assuming he's right-seat-guy) the copilot. I said that he shouldn't be in the right seat since he added nothing to the safety of the flight. If he had sat there doing nothing, touching nothing throughout the flight, I would have ignored him, but then Jerry tells him to talk on the radio. Throughout the flight, Right-Seat-Guy fiddles with various panels, blocks Jerry from seeing the panel, gets in the way, and occasionally talks on the radio.

Jerry divided his focus between flying, narrating for the utubies, and telling RSG what to do. Jerry needs to quit with the kabuki theatre of running an aviation business and focus on flying (I think his Order-of-Operations is Narrate->Pose->Aviate->Correct->Navigate->Narrate->Communicate). It is my opinion that this RSG should not have been there because Jerry is a crash waiting to happen, and unless the RSG (any RSG) is competent and confident enough to correct Jerry (like maybe a DPE), there should be no RSG.

I never meant to criticize Robert (again, assuming he's the RSG in the video). I only meant to criticize Jerry's use of an RSG to pretend the flight was anything other than a recreational flight.

 

[Doug Reid]

To be fair, he did say Pilot Error in the title bar.

 

[Salty]

To be fair, he did say Pilot Error in the title bar.

Yeah, but the error he's admitting too is not the unusual attitude, or what directly caused the unusual attitude. His real error was making large adjustments to the flight attitude and then immediately fixating on the gps and completely ignoring the necessary instrument scan that should have been primary focus. He thinks his error was punching the wrong button (which is really a subtle way of blaming someone else for blocking his view)

 

[PaulS]

He's probably referring to Robert's "error" of having his hand in the way of his view when he pushed the wrong button.

BTW, I used to use the same logic as Jerry on VTF activation, in that I waited until the last minute to give it a push worried about ATC vectoring me then clearing me to fix that is removed when you push VTF. I started doing this after being burned by controllers a few times and having to recover. Using that logic the decision to activate VTF usually comes pretty late in the game. As a result, I've forgotten to do it a couple of times, during practice approaches. I do IPCs once a year and I had forgotten the VTF push while practicing a coupled approach and didn't notice it in time, as a result I blew through the final approach course. I told my instructor about this on the IPC, he said "Paul" with a pause, when he does this I usually learn something. He said that you are PIC, and if something like that happens, speak up, tell the controller he's been vectoring you and that you set up for VTF, give a heading and an instruction to intercept.

Most of these guys have no idea what pilots need to do to follow their instructions and it's good to push back when stuff like this happens. If he can't do VTF, then tell him you need a vector and need to reload the procedure. Much better to do that than have a helmet fire, plus it takes some the onus off of the pilot and puts it back on the controller. Share the pain. If I think I'm being vectored to final, I push the button now while I'm thinking about it.

 

[Country Flier]

If (big if here when talking about Jerry) you know how to use your GPS/radio, being vectored to a different fix after VTF activation is no biggie at all...like 3 button pushes/knob twists max.

 

[iamtheari]

Yeah, but the error he's admitting too is not the unusual attitude, or what directly caused the unusual attitude. His real error was making large adjustments to the flight attitude and then immediately fixating on the gps and completely ignoring the necessary instrument scan that should have been primary focus. He thinks his error was punching the wrong button (which is really a subtle way of blaming someone else for blocking his view)

Exactly. It's like saying you committed a driving error by tuning XM channel 6 and finding it was no longer the 60s channel, in a video featuring you having 9 shots of cheap whiskey and blowing through a red light, running over a wheelchair while the former occupant dives out of it in terror. And then, at the end, asking the wheelchair guy to say "thanks for riding along" for the benefit of your YouTube audience.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

@PaulS - I was activating the leg that starts with the IAF continuing inbound and just not bothering with VTF. I can do this before joining the approach course while still being vectored.

Your thoughts on downside to this and if VTF would give me any benefits?

I like keeping the fixes because at a few of the airports that I do the practice approaches into, I know they are going to ask me to report passing one of the waypoints.

 

[iamtheari]

He's probably referring to Robert's "error" of having his hand in the way of his view when he pushed the wrong button.

BTW, I used to use the same logic as Jerry on VTF activation, in that I waited until the last minute to give it a push worried about ATC vectoring me then clearing me to fix that is removed when you push VTF. I started doing this after being burned by controllers a few times and having to recover. Using that logic the decision to activate VTF usually comes pretty late in the game. As a result, I've forgotten to do it a couple of times, during practice approaches. I do IPCs once a year and I had forgotten the VTF push while practicing a coupled approach and didn't notice it in time, as a result I blew through the final approach course. I told my instructor about this on the IPC, he said "Paul" with a pause, when he does this I usually learn something. He said that you are PIC, and if something like that happens, speak up, tell the controller he's been vectoring you and that you set up for VTF, give a heading and an instruction to intercept.

Most of these guys have no idea what pilots need to do to follow their instructions and it's good to push back when stuff like this happens. If he can't do VTF, then tell him you need a vector and need to reload the procedure. Much better to do that than have a helmet fire, plus it takes some the onus off of the pilot and puts it back on the controller. Share the pain. If I think I'm being vectored to final, I push the button now while I'm thinking about it.

I take the advice not to use VTF at all, and instead activate the final leg. That gives you everything good from VTF without any of the bad. Just open the flight plan, scroll down and tap the RW## fix, and hit the giant Activate Leg button. Similarly, use direct-to a fix on the approach instead of activating the approach.

 

[PaulS]

@PaulS - I was activating the leg that starts with the IAF continuing inbound and just not bothering with VTF. I can do this before joining the approach course while still being vectored.

Your thoughts on downside to this and if VTF would give me any benefits?

I like keeping the fixes because at a few of the airports that I do the practice approaches into, I know they are going to ask me to report passing one of the waypoints.

A lot of people do it that way and it works. My only thought is if there is a way point right in the middle of your vector, what happens if you pick the wrong leg? Plus I'm for simplicity, I like the VTF function, I've been run beyond the last leg of the approach and vectored to intercept there, what happens with that? Although it's only happened to me once that I can think of. The other thing is number of button pushes, for me it would be an additional few pushes and require some extra thinking, all not a big deal, but in my case not really worth it to me.

As an aside I have asked before if I'm being vectored, and the controllers are a little indignant and say yes. The good ones will say "expect vectors to final." The last one I asked was vectoring me toward the IAF in a busy area, so I asked him. He gave a reply in a snarky voice, "well you are being vectored" then didn't answer the question. So I replied, "yes, I know, but you guys have tricked me before and it's not a funny joke." He was actually fine after that and he did vector me.

Oh, I see what you are asking there, I'm flying Cirrus perspective +, all the waypoints on the final approach course are kept when you push VTF.

 

[tsts4]

Oh, I see what you are asking there, I'm flying Cirrus perspective +, all the waypoints on the final approach course are kept when you push VTF.

Same on the GTN 6XX/7XX unless you are running old software. Garmin fixed selecting VTF and having that remove all the waypoints some years ago now.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

Same on the GTN 6XX/7XX unless you are running old software. Garmin fixed selecting VTF and having that remove all the waypoints some years ago now.

I am still learning the 650. I fly switching back and forth between the 430 and the 650. Both current software (as far as 430 goes current. lol).
Good to know and thanks for the FYI on the difference between these.

 

[Dave Theisen]

In addition to giving Jerry a 44709 ride, the FSDO should take a peek at Robert’s logbook to see if he’s logging the time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

To be fair, he did say Pilot Error in the title bar.

Depends on what he thinks the errors were and what steps he's taking to correct them. History suggest his assessment will be wrong and he will do nothing to correct them.

 

[kaiser]

Always always always activate legs. Build failsafes into operations. I know that in the G1000/650/750 they fixed VTF, but activate leg is still a good and transferable skill.

Last month @ArrowFlyer86 and I recently flew down to RR IFR. We were following @N4984R and ATC promised us a vector to final.

Boom activate leg

As we got closer [inside the hold circuit but still on a vector] we were given instructions to hold at the IAF. Since I activated leg, the entire flight plan was still there.

Boom quick direct-to and a suspend of sequencing

Then (the nerve of this guy…) 3 seconds before we start the turn outbound ATC comes back and says cleared approach change to advisory!!

Boom quick RE-activation of that same leg past the IAF - make sure sequencing is not suspended, and we’re off to the races!

Approach was still trying to ship me to CTAF but I told him I’m staying with him for an extra moment to make sure GPS was still configured properly. Had it been screwed up, I would have asked for vectors around.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

ATC promised us a vector to final.
Boom activate leg

serious (non judgmental) question: (especially Garmin, if able)

Do you estimate from your heading which leg to activate or do you select the furthest one out, knowing you will probably shortcut to a closer one later?

If you chose the wrong leg to activate; is it difficult to cancel that and activate a different leg?

Thanks

 

[flyingcheesehead]

BTW, I used to use the same logic as Jerry on VTF activation, in that I waited until the last minute to give it a push worried about ATC vectoring me then clearing me to fix that is removed when you push VTF. I started doing this after being burned by controllers a few times and having to recover. Using that logic the decision to activate VTF usually comes pretty late in the game. As a result, I've forgotten to do it a couple of times, during practice approaches. I do IPCs once a year and I had forgotten the VTF push while practicing a coupled approach and didn't notice it in time, as a result I blew through the final approach course. I told my instructor about this on the IPC, he said "Paul" with a pause, when he does this I usually learn something. He said that you are PIC, and if something like that happens, speak up, tell the controller he's been vectoring you and that you set up for VTF, give a heading and an instruction to intercept.

Most of these guys have no idea what pilots need to do to follow their instructions and it's good to push back when stuff like this happens. If he can't do VTF, then tell him you need a vector and need to reload the procedure. Much better to do that than have a helmet fire, plus it takes some the onus off of the pilot and puts it back on the controller. Share the pain. If I think I'm being vectored to final, I push the button now while I'm thinking about it.

I kinda go with an in-between solution: I don't activate VTF as soon as I'm on a vector - This is at least partially because the STAR into my work base requires vectors from the STAR to all but one approach, and so you still don't know how you're going to get onto the approach sometimes.

However, by the time you're abeam the IF and generally significantly earlier, you've got a pretty good idea what's going to happen and can activate accordingly. By that point, they're not going to change the plan on you, everything else should be done so you should be able to activate whichever mode is most appropriate, and in the rare occasion that you need vectors back around, ATC has really screwed up. I have had a "situation" happen still, but it was due to a preceding emergency aircraft and Ops not giving the all clear to use the runway until we were well inside the FAF.

@PaulS - I was activating the leg that starts with the IAF continuing inbound and just not bothering with VTF. I can do this before joining the approach course while still being vectored.

Your thoughts on downside to this and if VTF would give me any benefits?

I like keeping the fixes because at a few of the airports that I do the practice approaches into, I know they are going to ask me to report passing one of the waypoints.

That works well. It's just a tiny bit more work than VTF.

I take the advice not to use VTF at all, and instead activate the final leg. That gives you everything good from VTF without any of the bad. Just open the flight plan, scroll down and tap the RW## fix, and hit the giant Activate Leg button. Similarly, use direct-to a fix on the approach instead of activating the approach.

I wouldn't activate the final leg, I'd activate the one immediately prior to the FAF. That's the one you're going to be vectored onto anyway. Depending on what equipment you have, activating the final leg may or may not work correctly.

 

[iamtheari]

I wouldn't activate the final leg, I'd activate the one immediately prior to the FAF. That's the one you're going to be vectored onto anyway. Depending on what equipment you have, activating the final leg may or may not work correctly.

I think the GTNs all extend the leg you've activated out to infinity, so anywhere you intercept it will work. I don't remember if the GNS units did that and have no experience with competing products. For what it's worth, if you can make it work with the FAF-RW leg, that one is easier to find and identify than the IF-FAF leg because you don't have to know the name of the FAF.

Either option would have been a dozen times better than Jerry's solution of blindly pushing the wrong activate button and then trying to pull the wings off the plane by way of his wife's stomach.

 

[EdFred]

I leave the IAF in the next waypoint if I am being vectored outside the IAF, and will activate VTF if I am going to be put inside the IAF.

 

[kaiser]

serious (non judgmental) question: (especially Garmin, if able)

Do you estimate from your heading which leg to activate or do you select the furthest one out, knowing you will probably shortcut to a closer one later?

If you chose the wrong leg to activate; is it difficult to cancel that and activate a different leg?

Thanks

Emphasizing the fact that you always have to be under positive lateral control, once the controller begins vectoring me [therefore I am no longer under GPS control], I give my best guess estimate as to where that intercept will take place. If I have a high confidence in where ATC plans to intercept me, I will activate the leg right then and there. The leg I choose to activate is the one I am more or less pointing at. If I'm on the downwind parallel to the inbound, I'm probably waiting. If I'm headed towards an intercept but still outbound, I'm activating the leg I'm abeam. In the real example I provided (it was RNAV 28 to I93 -> https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2304/pdf/10748R28.PDF), when the controller told me to expect vectors, there was really only one option to consider that is the leg from MCHLL to BOITE, as BOITE is the FAF and they have to vector you to intercept x miles outside the FAF (Noam said 3nm in his video but I could have sworn it was 2nm). The plane I flew was using Garmin 430W as the primary nav instrument.

Activating legs keeps the entire flight plan whole in the Garmin 430/530/G1000 (I think 650/750 as well but it's been over a year since I've flown these). Changing anything just requires going back into flight plan page, selecting the fix you wish to activate the leg to, and menu->activate leg. If you've never done this before, I advise you to practice this in either VFR with a safety pilot or on the Garmin sim.

Had I activated vectors to final or not loaded the entire approach, each instruction would have been an incredible bear to deal with.

 

[PaulS]

I'd like to see controllers just tell you what they are planning for you. "Expect VTF" or "Expect Initial fix".

 

[PaulS]

Emphasizing the fact that you always have to be under positive lateral control, once the controller begins vectoring me [therefore I am no longer under GPS control], I give my best guess estimate as to where that intercept will take place. If I have a high confidence in where ATC plans to intercept me, I will activate the leg right then and there. The leg I choose to activate is the one I am more or less pointing at. If I'm on the downwind parallel to the inbound, I'm probably waiting. If I'm headed towards an intercept but still outbound, I'm activating the leg I'm abeam. In the real example I provided (it was RNAV 28 to I93 -> https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2304/pdf/10748R28.PDF), when the controller told me to expect vectors, there was really only one option to consider that is the leg from MCHLL to BOITE, as BOITE is the FAF and they have to vector you to intercept x miles outside the FAF (Noam said 3nm in his video but I could have sworn it was 2nm). The plane I flew was using Garmin 430W as the primary nav instrument.

Activating legs keeps the entire flight plan whole in the Garmin 430/530/G1000 (I think 650/750 as well but it's been over a year since I've flown these). Changing anything just requires going back into flight plan page, selecting the fix you wish to activate the leg to, and menu->activate leg. If you've never done this before, I advise you to practice this in either VFR with a safety pilot or on the Garmin sim.

Had I activated vectors to final or not loaded the entire approach, each instruction would have been an incredible bear to deal with.

Recovery is pretty easy with the G1000, you just reload the approach, it even keeps your minimums loaded. But if things are happening fast, it's still a pain in the butt.

 

[kaiser]

I'd like to see controllers just tell you what they are planning for you. "Expect VTF" or "Expect Initial fix".

Also - when in doubt... ask! "Approach, Bugsmasher 123, for planning purposes, what should we expect for....."

 

[PaulS]

Also - when in doubt... ask! "Approach, Bugsmasher 123, for planning purposes, what should we expect for....."

Yup, I do that to varying results, see my post above.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think the GTNs all extend the leg you've activated out to infinity, so anywhere you intercept it will work. I don't remember if the GNS units did that and have no experience with competing products. For what it's worth, if you can make it work with the FAF-RW leg, that one is easier to find and identify than the IF-FAF leg because you don't have to know the name of the FAF.

I saw above that some things have improved on Garmin's software lately. I've only had one brief flight since my GTN was updated recently, so I'll have to mess with this when I fly it tomorrow. My other experience with Garmin products is that the behavior you describe, with the line activated out to infinity, is what you get when you activate vectors to final, not what you get when you activate a particular leg. Maybe they've realized that there's a better way.

The main concern I have with any of the techniques we've been discussing in this thread is - What happens when you have an approach with a turn at the FAF? For example, the RNAV(GPS) 28L KFCM.

Either option would have been a dozen times better than Jerry's solution of blindly pushing the wrong activate button and then trying to pull the wings off the plane by way of his wife's stomach.

Absolutely.

I'd like to see controllers just tell you what they are planning for you. "Expect VTF" or "Expect Initial fix".

The good ones do... But even the good ones have to change their plans sometimes. Often because of chuckleheads like Jerry screwing things up for them!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh, I see what you are asking there, I'm flying Cirrus perspective +, all the waypoints on the final approach course are kept when you push VTF

Personally, I gave up using VTF altogether in favor of activating the leg to the FAC and think it's an overall better strategy. But in your setup, where you retain the prior straight line waypoints, VTF vs activate leg doesn't really matter that much. What I think does matter is when. Upon receipt of that first vector accompanied by the words, "vectors to the final approach course," turn to the heading and do it. Even if accompanied by a descent, there's no rush because it's early, so smaller chance of error. So long as the waypoints that ATC might send you to if they change their minds are still there, there's no reason to wait any longer. And since the avionics are already set up, complying with the eventual PTAC is no different than it was with an ILS before GPS ever existed. No fuss no muss.

Jerry's little game of trying to guess which leg ATC will have him intercept after they begin giving vectors is ridiculous. I have cringed every time he has done it. It wastes time, distracts from the job at hand, and has zero or less benefit. 90%+ of the time ATC does give an intercept to the extended FAC. As the video demonstrates, waiting until the busy PTAC increases workload and the likelihood of some kind of error. And if ATC does send you to a waypoint that's still in the list, it's not that big a deal.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The main concern I have with any of the techniques we've been discussing in this thread is - What happens when you have an approach with a turn at the FAF? For example, the RNAV(GPS) 28L KFCM.

Good point out how VTF is still a potential priblem, but what do you see as the issue with activate leg?

And... what does ATC typically do with this approach?

 

[iamtheari]

Good point out how VTF is still a potential priblem, but what do you see as the issue with activate leg?

And... what does ATC typically do with this approach?

He quoted my post about activating the leg to the RW## fix rather than the leg to the FAF. I'm also curious about what ATC typically does with the approach in question. I can't speak to that. However, the GTN 750 Xi trainer does answer one question about it: What does "Activate Vectors to Final" do when there is a turn at the FAF? Answer: It gives you an extended leg from the prior fix (HERBO) to the FAF (ELOIT).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Good point out how VTF is still a potential priblem, but what do you see as the issue with activate leg?

He quoted my post about activating the leg to the RW## fix rather than the leg to the FAF.

Issues with activate leg? None, provided you're activating the leg to the FAF and there aren't further turns earlier.

The approach I've flown that popped into my head for multiple smaller turns prior to the FAF is the RNAV(GPS) 19 KJAC but at least in that one the last leg prior to the FAF *is* lined up with the FAC. Not a whole lot of vectors happening there in the valley, either - I flew this one all the way from Dunoir at 14,000 'cuz I was on V298 since the OROCA is over 16,000. It's a fun approach, too, had a heckuva time getting down AND slowing down in the Mooney. I think I dropped my gear at about 4000 AGL to help with that process.

And... what does ATC typically do with this approach?

We always initially get cleared on a preferred route that includes the AGUDE5 STAR, ask for a shortcut from ZMP when we first contact them, and the shortcut is always to FGT with a very low altitude restriction (usually 4000 feet 30 prior). Depending on what Minneapolis Approach is doing that day, we'll generally be on vectors at some point and either get direct HERBO or vectors to intercept between HERBO and ELOIT, with the former being more common IME.

However, the GTN 750 Xi trainer does answer one question about it: What does "Activate Vectors to Final" do when there is a turn at the FAF? Answer: It gives you an extended leg from the prior fix (HERBO) to the FAF (ELOIT).

Aha! Exactly as it should be. Cool!

Looking forward to trying out the latest GTN software this evening.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Best comment I heard today was someone on another pilot board suggesting a collaboration between Jerry and Trevor Jacob. Pure gold.

Even better would be to throw Gryder into the mix and call it the Three Stooges.

 

[dmspilot]

Best comment I heard today was someone on another pilot board suggesting a collaboration between Jerry and Trevor Jacob. Pure gold.

Even better would be to throw Gryder into the mix and call it the Three Stooges.

Sounds like a task for you know who:

Once upon a time in the sunny Bay Area of California, three pilots named Jerry, Trevor, and Dan embarked on a series of misadventures that could only be described as comically calamitous.

Jerry, with his twin-engine Cessna, fancied himself a flying prodigy. He would often boast about his expertise, regaling anyone who would listen with tales of his airborne escapades. Despite his overinflated confidence, Jerry had a knack for making blunders while up in the air. On one occasion, he mistook a flock of seagulls for a formation of fighter jets and tried to perform a barrel roll to impress his passengers, nearly causing them to spill their snacks. When confronted about his mistake, Jerry insisted that he was merely demonstrating his advanced aerobatic skills.

Trevor, on the other hand, was a pilot who enjoyed the thrill of not only flying but also indulged in daredevil stunts and skydiving. With his single-engine airplane, he'd take to the skies and capture jaw-dropping footage for his social media followers. Trevor, however, had a peculiar sense of ethics and a penchant for embellishing stories. Once, he posted a video claiming he had flown his plane through a rainbow, much to the skepticism of his viewers. When questioned about the authenticity of his feat, Trevor shrugged it off, saying, "It's all about creating the illusion, guys!"

Lastly, there was Dan, a former Delta Airlines pilot who now produced YouTube videos on general aviation. Like his counterparts, Dan's self-importance knew no bounds. He would often lecture his viewers with a confident air, even when he was mistaken. Once, he insisted that the emergency landing checklist could be summarized in a single sentence, but in reality, it was a lengthy process involving multiple steps. When viewers corrected him, Dan nonchalantly responded, "I was just testing if you were paying attention!"

One sunny afternoon, fate brought these three pilots together at a local airshow. They crossed paths near the food court, each boasting about their latest aviation conquests. Jerry bragged about his near-miss with a UFO, Trevor boasted about his skydiving stunt with a shark (obviously a man in a costume), and Dan shared the tale of his successful mid-air refueling with a paper airplane.

Their exaggerated tales caught the attention of a curious bystander, who happened to be an experienced aviation expert. Intrigued by the trio's shenanigans, he approached them and began asking technical questions about aerodynamics, regulations, and safety protocols. The pilots squirmed under his scrutiny but attempted to maintain their façade of expertise.

With a knowing grin, the expert started unraveling their stories, pointing out the flaws and inaccuracies in their claims. Jerry stuttered, Trevor fumbled for excuses, and Dan resorted to deflection, claiming he had simply simplified the complexities for his viewers' sake.

The bystander couldn't help but burst into laughter at their amusing attempts to save face. Seeing the humor in their exaggerated personas, he decided to organize a friendly competition. The challenge was simple: a paper airplane distance contest. The pilots were to fold their own paper airplanes and see whose flew the farthest.

Jerry, Trevor, and Dan accepted the challenge, feeling confident in their paper airplane engineering skills. Little did they know, their inflated egos were about to take a serious blow. One by one, they launched their meticulously crafted paper aircraft into the air, only to watch them nosedive embarrassingly close to the starting point.

As their paper airplanes plummeted, the three pilots shared a moment of realization. Their claims, their inflated egos, and their exaggerated abilities were all exposed for what they truly were—mere flights of fancy.

 

[Flying Keys]

Ok, that’s gold. Gold, Jerry!

 

[Sundancer]

He's probably referring to Robert's "error" of having his hand in the way of his view when he pushed the wrong button.

BTW, I used to use the same logic as Jerry on VTF activation, in that I waited until the last minute to give it a push worried about ATC vectoring me then clearing me to fix that is removed when you push VTF. I started doing this after being burned by controllers a few times and having to recover. Using that logic the decision to activate VTF usually comes pretty late in the game. As a result, I've forgotten to do it a couple of times, during practice approaches. I do IPCs once a year and I had forgotten the VTF push while practicing a coupled approach and didn't notice it in time, as a result I blew through the final approach course. I told my instructor about this on the IPC, he said "Paul" with a pause, when he does this I usually learn something. He said that you are PIC, and if something like that happens, speak up, tell the controller he's been vectoring you and that you set up for VTF, give a heading and an instruction to intercept.

Most of these guys have no idea what pilots need to do to follow their instructions and it's good to push back when stuff like this happens. If he can't do VTF, then tell him you need a vector and need to reload the procedure. Much better to do that than have a helmet fire, plus it takes some the onus off of the pilot and puts it back on the controller. Share the pain. If I think I'm being vectored to final, I push the button now while I'm thinking about it.

Oh yeah, this! I stepped in it like this not long ago at KILM - was "reluctant" to ask for vectors but did - controller was super cool, no drama, just came back with a vector while I sorted my stuff out. I'd have been better served having my buttonology better learned, but I was in a new (to me) airplane.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Oh yeah, this! I stepped in it like this not long ago at KILM - was "reluctant" to ask for vectors but did - controller was super cool, no drama, just came back with a vector while I sorted my stuff out. I'd have been better served having my buttonology better learned, but I was in a new (to me) airplane.

Believe me it's not just you. I have no idea why people continually think that flying IFR with advanced equipment they don't know is a good idea. I've seen people, even in the old pre-GPS days, get confused by where the flip-flop switch on a NAV/COM is located.

There was a fatal accident a few years ago. The NTSB report was pretty inconclusive but, having listened to the audio, I am firmly convinced it was the result of a pilot not knowing the basic 6 second task of replacing one approach with another (and this was not a last-minute change). I remember the accident for a few reasons. First, it was local. Second, it was the impetus for the short list of "GPS tasks Pilots Don't know How to Do" I use for IPCs and recurrent training.

 

[luvflyin]

Believe me it's not just you. I have no idea why people continually think that flying IFR with advanced equipment they don't know is a good idea. I've seen people, even in the old pre-GPS days, get confused by where the flip-flop switch on a NAV/COM is located.

There was a fatal accident a few years ago. The NTSB report was pretty inconclusive but, having listened to the audio, I am firmly convinced it was the result of a pilot not knowing the basic 6 second task of replacing one approach with another (and this was not a last-minute change). I remember the accident for a few reasons. First, it was local. Second, it was the impetus for the short list of "GPS tasks Pilots Don't know How to Do" I use for IPCs and recurrent training.

Yeah. There have been a couple others where when you follow along you can see it in your minds eye that buttonology is what did them in.

 

[Ryan F.]

Tough to watch - there are so many repeated instances like this with this person. One of these will surely do him in eventually.

This pilot simply exhibits poor airmanship and is easily distracted. In my opinion he adds many unnecessary steps into his flying including but not limited to the filming of his flights. He seems to not want to go more than a second or two without making a statement, often referencing something irrelevant to the task at hand. His scan is poor and flight deck discipline is non-existent.

You'd like to think someone could get through to him, maybe a family member or close friend. It feels like we're watching a chain of events with an inevitable outcome.

 

[Palmpilot]

...it was the impetus for the short list of "GPS tasks Pilots Don't know How to Do" I use for IPCs and recurrent training.

Could you post that list?

 

[Palmpilot]

I finally got around to watching the video.

I took notice when he mentioned hitting "Activate Approach" while he was ON the approach, which takes you from wherever you are to the IAF. I did that ONCE (while I was doing a practice approach in VFR conditions, which is what I stick to when I'm not sufficiently familiar with the equipment). It was an ILS and I was already on the final approach course, so I just turned off the autopilot and followed the ground-based needles on in. It was then that I learned that "Activate Approach" does not mean the same thing on Garmin equipment as it did on the old KLN equipment.

 

[Albany Tom]

So to our lawyer friends out there, does being a self-appointed youtube celebrity make a person a public figure? Or in other words, if we were to have a 'which youtube pilot is most likely to crash an aircraft because of their lack of skill or judgement' poll, would that be a bad thing? Not to be mean, or even funny, but a bit educational. Ok, perhaps satirical and educational at the same time.