wrote:

wrote:

Roy Smith wrote:



Let's be argumentative here. What regulation are you referring to?
In the case of LAX (the Civet 4 arrival I quoted earlier), the
problem was that following the glideslope caused the airplane to
violate published crossing restrictions.

In the Los Angeles case the violations occurred inside the CIVET
arrival, actually on the ILS profile. Those fixes are issued under Part
97 just as it the legal point at which the G/S *controls* for
descent(the PFAF).

In the case cited, the CFI is nitpicking but is nonetheless legally correct.


At SCK there was no crossing restriction either given in the
clearance or published. The pilot is free to descend *at his
discretion* from 2000 to 1800. Following the glideslope is a perfectly
acceptable way of doing that. The CFI is not only nit-picking, but in
this instance is wrong. Not only that, but he's making additional
unnecessary work.


I agree that the CFI is procedurally wrong, although legally correct.
Let me put it another way: the CFI is stuck on one aspect of the issue,
the other being that the pilot can make certain elections so long as he
does not use the G/S as primary for descent prior to the PFAF. The CFI
has a duty to teach resonable procedure while pointing out the legal
nuances of when the G/S is primary for altitude control. It sounds like
he covered only one aspect of the issue, which while correct legally, is
incorrect and out of context procedurally.